"Doesn't apply" can uncharitably be glossed as "doesn't apply at all" or charitably as "doesn't fully apply".
Parallel construction has actually been attested and reported on by mainstream news sources.
I hate the metonymy of "black helicopters". Helicopters that are painted black do exist, after all. It's merely that there is no reasonable evidence for their use in extralegal conspiracies. If you're going to dismiss something as a conspiracy theory, I'd rather you do that directly.
"That hasn't applied at or within 100 miles of a US border point of entry since 1953."
The plain meaning of that is not 'doesn't apply fully and maybe sometimes applies and sometimes not'. There's a difference between 'charitable interpretation' and 'so charitable as to coincidentally be bent into something originally unsaid but happens to support my argument'.
The goal of charitable interpretation is to avoid assuming ill-faith, not to reinterpret the position to something other than what it is.
"Opens a large hole in, allowing violations to large numbers of travelers at governmental discretion and thus doesn't usefully constrain the government against those in the area" is well within charitable interpretation of the quotation.
Apparently small loopholes can be readily, repeatedly violated.
But that's what the post the reply was to claimed. And adding 'parallel construction' to this is a bit like throwing in black helicopters.