Many Americans still burdened with constitutional rights

[james_davis_nicoll]

Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This " Constitution-Free Zone" includes most of the nation's largest metropolitan areas.

Is the claim that "nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders" correct? That would seem to require that the rest of the country contains slightly over 1/3rd of the population and since my incredibly untrustworthy eye thinks the first area is much smaller than the second, it implies even lower population densities than I expected for the interior regions.

Comments

[tceisele.livejournal.com]

That sounds about right, actually. The interior of the continent is not all that densely populated, and a lot of it (particularly west of the Mississippi) is darned near deserted. And, while there are a few big cities in the interior, most of the really big ones are on the coasts.

[tiger-spot.livejournal.com]

This map from the US census demonstrates the vast emptiness that is the interior West, but you can't pull numbers back out of it.

This one from Time may make the situation a little clearer.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

From the ACLU site:

# To calculate what proportion of the U.S. population is affected by these powers, the ACLU created a map and spreadsheet showing the population and population centers that lie within 100 miles of any “external boundary” of the United States.
# The population estimates were calculated by examining the most recent US census numbers for all counties within 100 miles of these borders. Using numbers from the Population Distribution Branch of the US Census Bureau, we were able to estimate both the total number and a state-by-state population breakdown. The custom map was created with help from a map expert at World Sites Atlas.
# What we found is that fully TWO-THIRDS of the United States’ population lives within this Constitution-free or Constitution-lite Zone. That’s 197.4 million people who live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Well, folks in Maine have a hard time getting further than 100 miles from either the coast or Canada . . .

Given the size of coastal and border cities (including the Great Lakes as one or t'other), I'd guess the claim passes muster.

[sraun]

Yeah, I could believe that. I know that we've been concentrating in cities for the past 100 years or so, most big cities are within 100 miles of a coast - that piles up really quickly.

I'd guess that it's safe to assume for any state with an ocean coast that most of the state's population lives within 100 miles of the coast. Go look at the US Representatives if you'd like another quick comparison - Maine has two Representatives; Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming all have one. Note that each state must have a minimum of one Representative - if Maine has two, what does that say about the population density of those big states with one each?

[brooksmoses]

Argh! LJ ate my comment, with all my statistics in it!

Here's what I remember, though: Go to Wikipedia's table of the largest U.S. metropolitan areas. Of the largest 12, only one is more than 100 miles from a border; of the largest 120, only 53 are (and that's including dubious ones and ones only partly outside the area).

As for population, those 120 metropolitan areas have a population of 206 million. The 67 that are clearly within the 100-mile swath have a population of 146 million, and if we take away the ones that are on inland borders (including the Great Lakes, which is where most of the rest are), we're still left with 112 million people within 100 miles of an ocean coast.

So, yes, the claim sounds plausible, and we're a startlingly coastally-biased country.

[leighdb.livejournal.com]

What KightP said. Water is life. That's why almost all of the larger non-coastal US cities are situated on rivers - most notably the Mississippi, of course.

It's hardly just an American thing. Practically every non-coastal major city in the world is next to some type of body of water.

[pixelmeow.livejournal.com]

Just look at one of those maps that shows the earth at night. Look at where all the light is. Google Earth has that view, and it's fascinating...

[spikebrennan.livejournal.com]

The ACLU's map is certainly wrong with respect to the states bordering Lake Michigan, such as Illinois. Lake Michigan lies entirely within the United States.

72

[narmitaj.livejournal.com]

They couldn't try exactly this in the UK, where you can't get further than 72 miles from the sea - here, in fact: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/3090539.stm . (So when they had a keep-out zone for massing men and machines for D-Day preparations in 1944 the Spies, Saboteurs & Other Undesirables Coastal Exclusion Strip was only 10 miles deep.)

And "my incredibly untrustworthy eye thinks the first area is much smaller than the second": it's probably a less much smaller difference than it looks, if you see what I mean, esp with Alaska and Hawaii included.

It's one of those things that contributes to the place you want on a map sitting on a fold as often as it does - the "narrow" strip round the edges adding up to quite a chunk of the map area. The 1" margins on a normal MS submission amount to 37% of the paper area, and that is nice and squared off and not full of inlets, curves and bumpy lakes.

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think it's accurate. There's a reason most of the inside is called "flyover" country.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Weren't you one of the people who pointed out that in perceived population density (that is, the population density experienced locally by the average person), the US is actually well within the range covered by the countries of Western Europe?

[radiotelescope.livejournal.com]

sraun wrote: "I'd guess that it's safe to assume for any state with an ocean coast that most of the state's population lives within 100 miles of the coast."

I got obsessed with this question for the usual unfathomable reasons last night... (This is homo-sapiens version of when the cat decides to run around the couch like a crazy beast for no reason, right?)

If that assumption fails for any East Coast state, it's North Carolina. The ACLU's map puts Raleigh within the 100-mile band, but it's a matter of deciding where a long, narrow bay turns into a river. If you take Washington NC as the "inmost point" of the bay, then Raleigh is 93 miles inland -- but Durham is 108 miles, meaning that the 100-mile boundary splits that metro region. With Charlotte and Greensboro, the majority of NC's big-city population is non-coastal. I suspect that the rest of the state is insufficient to sway the balance.

(Then there is the question of how you measure "distance to the coast". I know, it's not relevant to the ACLU's point. But it is amusing to note that Pittsburgh is 110 miles from Lake Erie... even though you can't get there by river. In terms of water travel, Pittsburgh is 1300 miles inland of New Orleans.)

Hey, that killed a lot of time.

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

Given the straightforwardly absurd* parameters of the definition, I was surprised that it encompassed only 2/3 of the population. Humans tend to build near water. In the US, that means our cities are on the oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes (which seem to be defined as "border" for the purposes of this problem because the Coast Guard patrols them, even where Canada is not directly on the other side), and the Rio Grande. "Within 100 miles" means counting all the people in big cities that sprawl inland from a port. Not to mention Michigan and Florida, which are each less than 200 miles wide. The only really big cities excluded from the parameters are Atlanta, Dallas, Minneapolis, and Pittsburgh. I think of Denver, Phoenix, and Salt Lake as medium sized, but I'm not referring to a recent census.

*Why 100 miles? It's not a reasonable walking distance, or a reasonable daily commute. If you're in a city and you drive 100 miles, it can take you half a day and put you in another city. (100 miles would take me to Northhampton, in western MA. Or to Hartford, CT.) It really looks like they're using "100 miles" to mean "a long way inland" and that makes it especially disturbing that the courts aren't stopping them. There's no rational reason for them not to expand their concept of "border" so it meets in the middle of the country, if it would help them get around that pesky bill of rights.