Hate to say it, but AOC is right about this one

[somsai]

10. Actually the border itself is different.

In the U.S., constitutional rights apply differently depending on where you are and your status. If you're at the border—say, trying to enter at a checkpoint or airport—your rights are pretty limited. Border guards can search, question, and even detain you without the same level of protections you'd have inside the country. The Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches) and Fifth Amendment (right to remain silent, due process) don’t fully kick in until you’re admitted into the U.S. This is because the Supreme Court has consistently held that the border is a special zone where the government has broad authority to protect national sovereignty—think cases like United States v. Ramsey (1977).
Once you’re physically inside the U.S., even if you entered illegally, some constitutional rights start to apply. For example, the Supreme Court ruled in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) and Wong Wing v. United States (1896) that non-citizens on U.S. soil get basic due process and equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. If you’re detained or arrested inside the country, you’d have rights like access to a lawyer or a hearing, regardless of immigration status. But there’s a catch: immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal, so you don’t get the full suite of criminal protections like a jury trial.
For citizens, full constitutional rights apply the moment you’re on U.S. soil, though the border zone (within 100 miles of any border) still gives agents extra leeway for stops and searches. It’s a sliding scale—location, status, and context all matter.