Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - Does anyone here refuse to answer questions from CBP officers?

I've read a few posts from people on this forum saying that they refuse to answer when TSA agents ask them to state their names or ask where they are flying.


The TSA agent questions are far less intrusive than the questions that Customs and Border Protection officers ask when you re-enter the country. In my personal experience, those questions can include:

"Where are you coming from?"
"How long have you been away from the U.S.?"
"What were you doing in country x?"
"Why are you traveling alone?"
"How much did you spend on your trip?
"What do you do for a living?"
"What hotel did you stay at?"

Do any Americans here refuse to answer these questions? I suspect it would drive the CBP officers a bit nuts if you stood there absolutely mute, because then they wouldn't even be able to tell if you spoke English like an American-born American passport holder should (in their eyes).

Anyway, I always cooperate and answer when CBP officers ask me questions, I'm not a privacy/civil rights nut. But I'm curious if anyone here refuses to answer their questions and what the repercussions are. I suspect the main consequence would be that you get sent to secondary screening. I don't know if they can do much more than that to an American who has a right to re-enter the country.

If you're a US citizen returning to the US (with appropriate documentation), you don't actually have to say anything. But if you don't, you can be sure that they're going to give you a complete inspection, open every bag, inspect all your clothes, and maybe more.

joe

if you're female and attractive, it may give them further incentive to strip search you. especially if you're African American and traveling alone.

Looks like this topic was already discussed here two years back:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-issues/1077609-detained-cbp-not-answering-questions.html

if you're female and attractive, it may give them further incentive to strip search you. especially if you're African American and traveling alone.

really?

really?

yeah, really.

Class action Lawsuit Settlement against Border Patro (http://www.thecathyharrisstory.com/ClassActionLawsuitSettlement_1_.pdf)l


On February 3, 2006, the federal government agreed to pay close to $2 million to 87 African-American women who were searched getting off airplanes at O’Hare International Airport. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) admitted no wrongdoing. Class-Action lawsuits do change policies and procedures and this is what has happened according to former whistleblower and now retired Customs Inspector Cathy Harris....

The lawsuit was officially filed in 1997 and initially included 1300 African
American women. But because of the three year statute of limitations many of the women were not allowed to join the lawsuit. These women who were judges, doctors, lawyer, teachers and other professional women had their lives turned upside down when they tried to enter back into the United States after traveling internationally.Harris stated that since the U.S. Customs Service falls under the Department of Homeland Security, and is now called the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) (www.cbp.gov), that Customs and Immigration Inspectors/Officers have gone back to their own ways of subjecting African American travelers particularly women to abusive pat-downs, intrusive strip-searches, cavity searches, x-ray examinations, monitored bowel movements, and prolonged detentions...

Yes I have and when they "threatened" with their invasive searching I said bring it on but be ready for the consequences. I was through 8 minutes later.

really?

Yes, really there is documented history of minority females of some backgrounds being strip searched (or worse) more frequently for all the wrong reasons.

The TSA agent questions are far less intrusive than the questions that Customs and Border Protection officers ask when you re-enter the country. In my personal experience, those questions can include:

"Where are you coming from?"
"How long have you been away from the U.S.?"
"What were you doing in country x?"
"Why are you traveling alone?"
"How much did you spend on your trip?
"What do you do for a living?"
"What hotel did you stay at?"


The questions TSA asks in the 20 questions game are far more intrusive of that of CBP interview. I went through mcuh less returning from a one night stay in the middle east than what i went through flying across country for a few days vacation.

Not in the USA, but in 25 years of business travel, I have occasionally used in response to "what were you doing in xxxx" insert name of "dodgy" country e.g. India, Colombia

"I'm sorry Sir, I'm not allowed to answer that question"
"It's commercial information from my company"
"I can tell you the name of my company, but I'm sorry I can't answer that question"

The TSA agent questions are far less intrusive than the questions that Customs and Border Protection officers ask when you re-enter the country. In my personal experience, those questions can include:

<SNIP>


How do these questions materially differ from the ones the BDOs ask? :rolleyes:

BDO style questions (modified slightly):
"Where is your home?"
"How long have you been in Boston?"
"What were you doing in Boston?"
"Why are you traveling alone?"
"How much did you spend in Boston?"
"What do you do for a living?"
"What hotel did you stay at?"

The difference between the BDO and the CBP officer is that a CBP officer is staring at the APIS information right in front of him, so he is able to tell whether or not your answers are congruent with what's on the screen. The BDO has no way to verify any of your answers. Also, there are cases where CBP is looking for JOHN DOE, and your name also happens to be JOHN DOE but perhaps with a different nationality or birthdate.

Furthermore, CBP is actually interested in knowing whether or not you've broken any customs laws or given them reason to believe you have immigrant intent if you're not a US citizen or on a non-immigrant visa.

Nope. I used to walk across the San Diego-Tijuana border on a monthly basis or so, back when you could do so with just a driver's license, and refusing to answer questions there is a great way to be refused re-entry to the United States. I don't volunteer any more information than they ask for; unlike one-striper TDCs, a smile and a, "Hello," will not lower the probability of a pat-down.

Sometimes I refuse to answer, but that may well be a response that is not an answer. If it is a question about goods, I will give a qualified answer.

Nope. I used to walk across the San Diego-Tijuana border on a monthly basis or so, back when you could do so with just a driver's license, and refusing to answer questions there is a great way to be refused re-entry to the United States. I don't volunteer any more information than they ask for; unlike one-striper TDCs, a smile and a, "Hello," will not lower the probability of a pat-down.


It is not lawful for US government employees at a US port of entry to knowingly refuse a US citizen re-entry to the US. They can harass or otherwise delay a US citizen but to willfully refuse a US citizen re-entry to the US at a US POE would be without lawful basis. Refusal that is unwitting does occur.

CBP are law enforcement tasked with an actual reason to ask people about their travels and why they want to enter the country.

TSA is a bunch of glorified rent-a-cops with no legal justification to ask why someone wants to board a plane and travel.

That's why I answer Immigration and Customs questions - plain and short, yes and no, the fewer syllables the better.

That's why I don't answer TSA questions, nor say hello, or if I'm having a nice day, or anything else they ask.

We don't live in the US but are US Citizens. My husband is always asked what he does for work when we enter the country. He never answers. He is a US citizen returning to the country of his birth and the country that he holds a passport to ( and also pays taxes). Why would you ever divulge information that you are not required to? We have heard " I'm only asking a simple question.... Jeez." To "OK, welcome back". We have never been detained or questioned further. All information is on my entry documentation. No other chit chat is necessary.

We have never been detained or questioned further. All information is on my entry documentation. No other chit chat is necessary.

Then what do you put down as your US address? if you do not live in the US?

I never fill it out because I have not had a US address since 1991 and as a US citizen I am not required to have an address and in my case I often do not know where I am staying that night. Yet, I often am threatened with being "delayed" until I put something on the form. I put any old address I can think of and write in the margin that "Officer X forced me to falsify this declaration in order to gain entry to the US". Pre-911 I that only happened once, now it is a regular occurence.

CBP are law enforcement tasked with an actual reason to ask people about their travels and why they want to enter the country.

TSA is a bunch of glorified rent-a-cops with no legal justification to ask why someone wants to board a plane and travel.

Thats the reason CBP agents are armed (even the administrative ones doing GE interviews) and TSA are not.

Thats the reason CBP agents are armed (even the administrative ones doing GE interviews) and TSA are not.

If the TSA are ever permitted to carry weapons, even a Taser, I'm driving everywhere from now on.

CBP agents at DUB and SNN aren't armed, because Ireland won't let them be.

I have to say I can't understand what sense it makes for USCBP to be interrogating US citizens. I've never had any trouble or delay at Irish immigration (I'm an Irish citizen), and haven't been asked anything beyond where I was travelling from anywhere else in the EU, which turned out to be a question to establish what flights had recently arrived.

CBP agents at DUB and SNN aren't armed, because Ireland won't let them be.

I have to say I can't understand what sense it makes for USCBP to be interrogating US citizens. I've never had any trouble or delay at Irish immigration (I'm an Irish citizen), and haven't been asked anything beyond where I was travelling from anywhere else in the EU, which turned out to be a question to establish what flights had recently arrived.

That's because other EU countries are highly restricted in what they can ask you and in possible grounds for denial of entry.

I am a US citizen by birth (and also a Canadian citizen by birth), and live in Canada. I don't show my Canadian passport when entering the US, as it's of no significance then.

A couple trips ago, at US Immigration at YVR (for those who don't know, US Immigration clears people prior to their flights to the US), the agent looked at my US passport, and for no apparent reason, said, "So. You think you're going to fly today?". I said, "Yes". Then she asked me a couple questions that were slightly intrusive, but of little consequence. But I was taken aback by the hostile approach.

That's because other EU countries are highly restricted in what they can ask you and in possible grounds for denial of entry.

Try they are restricted, full stop. They may not ask any questions once valid travel documents for an EU citizen have been produced and identified as bonafide. The boys in AMS tend to forget this, but to be fair they only ask to see boarding pass or ask destination.

Try they are restricted, full stop. They may not ask any questions once valid travel documents for an EU citizen have been produced and identified as bonafide. The boys in AMS tend to forget this, but to be fair they only ask to see boarding pass or ask destination.

Which is what the rules should be for US CBP as well. Unless they have reason to believe the passport is not bonafide, or that you have lied on the custom declaration, that should be it.

joe

Try they are restricted, full stop. They may not ask any questions once valid travel documents for an EU citizen have been produced and identified as bonafide. The boys in AMS tend to forget this, but to be fair they only ask to see boarding pass or ask destination.

I haven't flown through AMS much, but I recall being subjected to very extensive questioning in the boarding gate area on my departing flight asking what I was doing in Amsterdam, who packed my luggage, etc. Dutch drug cops, I assume.

I haven't flown through AMS much, but I recall being subjected to very extensive questioning in the boarding gate area on my departing flight asking what I was doing in Amsterdam, who packed my luggage, etc. Dutch drug cops, I assume.
This sounds like the standard security questions asked at the gate for passengers on USA airlines.

A couple trips ago, at US Immigration at YVR (for those who don't know, US Immigration clears people prior to their flights to the US), the agent looked at my US passport, and for no apparent reason, said, "So. You think you're going to fly today?". I said, "Yes". Then she asked me a couple questions that were slightly intrusive, but of little consequence. But I was taken aback by the hostile approach.

I've never had trouble with US Immigration other than an odd query
over a sandwich I had with me for personal consumption...

Me: I have a sandwich with me for personal consumption... is that ok?
US: Where did you purchase the sandwich?
Me: I made the sandwich myself.
US: What kind of sandwich?
Me: Roast beef?
US: Where did the roast beef come from?
Me: Purchased at Canadian grocery store.
US: Is it Canadian?
Me: The grocery store yes... the beef I'm not sure.
US: Is it for personal consumption?
Me: Yes, the plan is to eat it before I leave Canadian soil.
US: Ok, welcome to the United States.

lolz

Try they are restricted, full stop. They may not ask any questions once valid travel documents for an EU citizen have been produced and identified as bonafide. The boys in AMS tend to forget this, but to be fair they only ask to see boarding pass or ask destination.

I think that is more to ensure that non-passengers aren't entering the departures area without a valid flight to go to, as in some piers at AMS with security at the gate that will be the first "official check" you go through.

By the time I figured out that I didn't have to answer questions from CBP, I already had Global Entry, so I never had to decide whether it was worth it to refuse.

I have recently started responding to the name game by telling TSOs that I decline to answer any question that may be used to incriminate me. (Or saying, "I plead the 5th"). All good so far.

The only one that threw me was SFO, where I knew that the checkpoint was staffed by contract workers (so I wasn't 100% sure how the protections against self-incrimination apply), and they don't ask, rather they instruct you to say your name. But next time I will be prepared. ;)

You're not required to answer questions, they will probably give you a hard time.
That being said as an expat US Citizen I put down my residence as overseas and I almost always get a Welcome Home response and nothing more..

I know I was kind of rolling the dice on this one but the last time I flew into the US under "occupation" on the form I wrote down "bludger" (Aussie slang for a person who avoids work, especially someone of authority who is poorly regarded by others) when ICE asked me what that means I said "I'm in the same line of work as you". I got a smile and a "have a nice day". I was laughing all the way to the hotel!

I think that is more to ensure that non-passengers aren't entering the departures area without a valid flight to go to, as in some piers at AMS with security at the gate that will be the first "official check" you go through.

I would agree that that is exactly the reason. I am amazed at the number of people it catches. Illegal nonetheless and they get their backs up in a heartbeat.

I would agree that that is exactly the reason. I am amazed at the number of people it catches. Illegal nonetheless and they get their backs up in a heartbeat.
Getting rather off-topic but I wonder how this interacts with Privium members, who aren't required to show a boarding pass.

Anyway, I always cooperate and answer when CBP officers ask me questions, I'm not a privacy/civil rights nut. But I'm curious if anyone here refuses to answer their questions and what the repercussions are. I suspect the main consequence would be that you get sent to secondary screening. I don't know if they can do much more than that to an American who has a right to re-enter the country.

Now that I have global entry, this isn't an issue. Before, my interaction with CBP officers depended on whether I thought they were being friendly or on a power trip. If the former, I would engage with them. If it was the latter, I'd clam up.

The only serious interaction I have had with CBP was on a land crossing. I had been turned back at the Canadian border because my paperwork for entering Canada to work for a couple of days did not meet the requirements that the officer on the Canadian side insisted were necessary. She gave me a slip of paper to hand off to CBP on my return through to the US.

The CBP officer then asked why I was turned back. He said that because I was refused entry into Canada, and that the paper he was given stated no reason for the refusal, he was required to detain me for the purpose of an investigation as to whether I could enter back into the US. My passport was retained, I had to park my rental car in a secure area, and I was escorted into a low security detention area. The officer there asked why I had been refused, the purpose of my trip, where I would be going (home, obviously) and several other questions about the purpose of my trip. I was left to cool my heels for about an hour a so. The officer then came and handed me my paperwork and passport and said I was free to go.

He also indicated, but did not say outright, that the paperwork from Canada was what caused the detention. They knew I would be given this treatment when they gave me the paper to give to the CBP. I suspect, without proof, that it was retaliation for appealing the initial decision up the ladder to the Canadian immigration supervisor who of course backed the front line officer.

I had been turned back at the Canadian border...

...he was required to detain me for the purpose of an investigation as to whether I could enter back into the US.


I assume you're a US citizen? CAN they even refuse you entry back into the US? If so, and you can't enter Canada and can't re-enter America where do you go? Are you then a permenant resident of "US-Canadian border crossing (x)?"

I assume you're a US citizen? CAN they even refuse you entry back into the US? If so, and you can't enter Canada and can't re-enter America where do you go? Are you then a permenant resident of "US-Canadian border crossing (x)?"

For US government personnel at a US POE to refuse entry to a person recognized as a US citizen by the same would be unlawful.

The US is not legally entitled to deliberately make its own citizens stateless persons and/or deny right of return to its own citizens.

Unfortunately they can otherwise still delay or otherwise harass returning US citizens without being found, and held accountable, for running afoul of US legal obligations.

Please understand that my encounter with the CBP in the incident above was not unfriendly. They were in no way harassing or bullying. As I understood it, the paperwork simply stated that I was denied entry into Canada without stating a reason. Had she not given me the paper and told me to give it to the CBP, I could have crossed with no problem and headed back to the airport. I suppose that I could have just "forgotten" the paper, I have no idea if they were expecting me or not.

As I was turned back without a reason given, they had to at least assume that it was possible that there was criminal or illegal activity involved or suspected. They had to verify that was not the case. If I had an open warrant, I think that I would have gotten into the US, but the destination may have been different that what I was planning. They may have called over to the Canadians and asked, but I do not know. I am pretty sure they ran a basic law enforcement background check as they had both my passport and my DL. I also understood that the only reason I was stopped was because of the way the Canadian immigration people sent me back across.

Please understand that my encounter with the CBP in the incident above was not unfriendly. They were in no way harassing or bullying. As I understood it, the paperwork simply stated that I was denied entry into Canada without stating a reason. Had she not given me the paper and told me to give it to the CBP, I could have crossed with no problem and headed back to the airport. I suppose that I could have just "forgotten" the paper, I have no idea if they were expecting me or not.

As I was turned back without a reason given, they had to at least assume that it was possible that there was criminal or illegal activity involved or suspected. They had to verify that was not the case. If I had an open warrant, I think that I would have gotten into the US, but the destination may have been different that what I was planning. They may have called over to the Canadians and asked, but I do not know. I am pretty sure they ran a basic law enforcement background check as they had both my passport and my DL. I also understood that the only reason I was stopped was because of the way the Canadian immigration people sent me back across.

Yeah, I understand am cool with all that. It was more the question of an American being denied entry into their home country that I was curious about.

Me: Yes, the plan is to eat it before I leave Canadian soil.


If you're already standing in front of the CBP officer, you're already on US soil. How did that work out? :p

If you're already standing in front of the CBP officer, you're already on US soil. How did that work out? :p

Not for all the US officers stationed at pre-clearance points in Canada, Ireland, the Bahamas, Bermuda and at least one I am forgeting.

If you're already standing in front of the CBP officer, you're already on US soil. How did that work out? :p

It worked out fine... as I was on Canadian soil at the Ottawa, Ontario Canada airport going through US customs PRIOR to departure. :D

Just a quick note: remember that US CBP are performing both Immigration and Customs duties. Although there are no questions that may legitimately be asked of a US citizen regarding entry to the US once it's been determined they are a US citizen, questions may be asked to determine the extent, if any, of a search for Customs purposes.

By the time I figured out that I didn't have to answer questions from CBP, I already had Global Entry, so I never had to decide whether it was worth it to refuse.

I have recently started responding to the name game by telling TSOs that I decline to answer any question that may be used to incriminate me. (Or saying, "I plead the 5th"). All good so far.

The only one that threw me was SFO, where I knew that the checkpoint was staffed by contract workers (so I wasn't 100% sure how the protections against self-incrimination apply), and they don't ask, rather they instruct you to say your name. But next time I will be prepared. ;)

Technically, the correct form is "I invoke my 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination". Note: this works for non-citizens too. The 5th Amendment says "a person", not "citizens".

Also, private contractor or not, they are operating under authority granted to them by US law. Under said law, you cannot be penalized for exercising any one of your Constitutional rights or refusing to voluntarily give up information not legally required.

Now that I have global entry, this isn't an issue. Before, my interaction with CBP officers depended on whether I thought they were being friendly or on a power trip. If the former, I would engage with them. If it was the latter, I'd clam up.

This is what I do, although I've never had to deal with a power tripping CBP agent.

It worked out fine... as I was on Canadian soil at the Ottawa, Ontario Canada airport going through US customs PRIOR to departure. :D

Ah, for some reason I thought you were in the midst of a land crossing. My mistake, then.

Just a quick note: remember that US CBP are performing both Immigration and Customs duties. Although there are no questions that may legitimately be asked of a US citizen regarding entry to the US once it's been determined they are a US citizen, questions may be asked to determine the extent, if any, of a search for Customs purposes.
The Questions can be asked; You are NOT REQUIRED to answer them. You submit a written declaration and that's enough.

Will they give you a hard time? Almost certainly. But I'd rather keep my 5th amendment rights. Am I a little crazy? Definitely :D

Remember, CBP are law enforcement officers and can arrest you.
See:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
and http://knifetricks.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-am-detained-by-feds-for-not-answering.html <- I would link to the original nomadblog.com piece except it appears to be hacked.

The Questions can be asked; You are NOT REQUIRED to answer them. You submit a written declaration and that's enough.
I completely agree. But I was addressing those who claim they shouldn't even be asking them.

The Questions can be asked; You are NOT REQUIRED to answer them. You submit a written declaration and that's enough.



The "detention" above (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1360097-does-anyone-here-refuse-answer-questions-cbp-officers-post18828742.html#post18828742) was at a land crossing where there is no written declaration.

From the Canadian Side

On the CBSA (Canadian Border Security Agency) website, it's written that returning Canadians are required to answer all questions.... There is no further details as to what the question topics are limited to.

Upon returning to Canada a number of weeks ago (weekly traveller), I questioned the CBSA Officer whether I was required to answer the question posed to me "Who do you work for." Simply questioning the Officer was enough to be sent to Secondary, where I was further questioned in a more detailed manner.

Not for all the US officers stationed at pre-clearance points in Canada, Ireland, the Bahamas, Bermuda and at least one I am forgeting.

Aruba.

I completely agree. But I was addressing those who claim they shouldn't even be asking them.

They shouldn't, as it is well possible to perform customs functions separately from immigration functions, and immigration functions aren't meant to lock out US citizens regardless of goods (not) being transported. Working for one agency or department with multiple roles is a poor excuse for what goes on at US ports of entry.

From the Canadian Side

On the CBSA (Canadian Border Security Agency) website, it's written that returning Canadians are required to answer all questions.... There is no further details as to what the question topics are limited to.

Upon returning to Canada a number of weeks ago (weekly traveller), I questioned the CBSA Officer whether I was required to answer the question posed to me "Who do you work for." Simply questioning the Officer was enough to be sent to Secondary, where I was further questioned in a more detailed manner.

Canada, like the US, can't lawfully deny entry to Canadian citizens, but -- as with the US -- can delay or otherwise harass returning Canadians or others with an international right to enter the country.

Depends on how much time you have on your hands.

If you have about 12 hours to spare, you can remain quiet. Eventually, they will let you by.

If you have a connecting flight, plan on missing it...

Then what do you put down as your US address? if you do not live in the US?

I never fill it out because I have not had a US address since 1991 and as a US citizen I am not required to have an address and in my case I often do not know where I am staying that night. Yet, I often am threatened with being "delayed" until I put something on the form. I put any old address I can think of and write in the margin that "Officer X forced me to falsify this declaration in order to gain entry to the US". Pre-911 I that only happened once, now it is a regular occurence.

I put down the address of my US home. It is my address while I am abroad even though I am seldom there. Quite frankly, I don't care if I am delayed at the border. So I spend the night in Chicago. Things could be worse. In 9 years, we have gotten exasperated looks but never delayed.

Depends on how much time you have on your hands.

If you have about 12 hours to spare, you can remain quiet. Eventually, they will let you by.

If you have a connecting flight, plan on missing it...

I always remain quiet. "Is there something questionable about my passport?" Is the only utterance I make. Truly, the less said, the better. FYI... I have never missed a connecting flight because of Immigration or customs. I truly never answer personal questions that are asked by people I don't know. I don't care who is asking.

Just a quick note: remember that US CBP are performing both Immigration and Customs duties. Although there are no questions that may legitimately be asked of a US citizen regarding entry to the US once it's been determined they are a US citizen, questions may be asked to determine the extent, if any, of a search for Customs purposes.

True, and I have had several customs searches. They are quick and painless if you are not carrying banned items.

Then what do you put down as your US address? if you do not live in the US?

I never fill it out because I have not had a US address since 1991 and as a US citizen I am not required to have an address and in my case I often do not know where I am staying that night. Yet, I often am threatened with being "delayed" until I put something on the form. I put any old address I can think of and write in the margin that "Officer X forced me to falsify this declaration in order to gain entry to the US". Pre-911 I that only happened once, now it is a regular occurence.

I always arrive at JFK (T8 = AA). To keep in sync with the info on my DL, I usually list my PO Box, as my address. Most agents don't care; one agent (who I dealt with on 2 occasions, wanted to know my "real" address.) Now that I'm in the GE system I don't have to deal with an agent (or fill out the customs form). [I have very few documents which list my real address; when I went for the GE interview, I brought a copy of my lease and a recent rent bill--the agent didn't ask to see either of these.]

I always arrive at JFK (T8 = AA). To keep in sync with the info on my DL, I usually list my PO Box, as my address. Most agents don't care; one agent (who I dealt with on 2 occasions, wanted to know my "real" address.) Now that I'm in the GE system I don't have to deal with an agent (or fill out the customs form). [I have very few documents which list my real address; when I went for the GE interview, I brought a copy of my lease and a recent rent bill--the agent didn't ask to see either of these.]

When they ask the old, "real address," question, tell them to "call the State Department," if they're willing to put up with the same friendly customer service there, then they really must know. Otherwise that answer usually brings out their lazy side and you're on your way.

It was so much better when Customs and Immigration were two functions. The forms filled out were for Customs and this concept could be reinforced with an inquisitive Immigration employee. Now, the combined organisation however is at a loss to understand that I do not, and have not had an address in the US since I left in 1991.

I loved it when they really messed up my photo when they scanned it for my new passport. CBP proceeded to tell me how I should change it. I told him that if he was willing to pay for it I would gladly do so, but that I should not be penalized for a government worker incapable of doing their job to an acceptable level as paying for the TSA was painful enough.

From the Canadian Side

On the CBSA (Canadian Border Security Agency) website, it's written that returning Canadians are required to answer all questions.... There is no further details as to what the question topics are limited to.

Upon returning to Canada a number of weeks ago (weekly traveler), I questioned the CBSA Officer whether I was required to answer the question posed to me "Who do you work for." Simply questioning the Officer was enough to be sent to Secondary, where I was further questioned in a more detailed manner.

To begin with, this whole charade at Canadian airports is just foolish that they have a combined customs/immigration. They should change it to the way it is in Europe, the Europeans give preference to their own folks with expedited clearance through passport control.
Here, Canadians are forced to join the same lines as everyone else.

The sort of questions CBSA clerks ask to returning Canadians are sometimes ridiculous. Their only questions should be limited to the customs allowances.

Perhaps people need to stop answering unrelated questions at CBSA primary inspection and remind the officers that they are not a foreign national requesting entry. Let's see how long they're held up. Normally most are just exiting the airport into the city.

The sort of questions CBSA clerks ask to returning Canadians are sometimes ridiculous. Their only questions should be limited to the customs allowances.


The question I get asked appears ridiculous to me...

"Why are you coming back?"

Uh, I'm a Canadian appears to be the obvious answer.

It is so simple... valid Canadian passport? Yes... then let them through
with no questions and a "Welcome back!".

Let me ask a related question: can U.S. citizens returning to the U.S. simply refuse to fill out the blue form 6059B? Would there be any negative repercussions other than secondary screening?

I think it would be pretty cool to walk up to the passport control booth and hand the officer a bank form 6059B and say "Hi, I don't fill these out."

Let me ask a related question: can U.S. citizens returning to the U.S. simply refuse to fill out the blue form 6059B? Would there be any negative repercussions other than secondary screening?

I think it would be pretty cool to walk up to the passport control booth and hand the officer a bank form 6059B and say "Hi, I don't fill these out."

You think "it" would be pretty cool, or do you think "you" would be pretty cool? :rolleyes:

I probably couldn't pull it off.

You think "it" would be pretty cool, or do you think "you" would be pretty cool? :rolleyes:

If every returning US citizen did protest in such way, it may lead to interesting change indeed.

Unfortunately most people are going to behave like little sheep in the face of most government requests because: most people prefer to spend their time doing something else than protesting; and being the point protester hassled by the government with no back-up from the general population of sheeple (or sheeple leaders) -- so as to undermine government demands of free people -- doesn't motivate pushing for change.

I found this report of a guy who refused to fill out the part of the form asking for his destination address:

http://www.aarontitus.net/blog/2007/05/21/letter-to-department-of-homeland-security/

He just got delayed with no other consequences. I can't find any other info online though about refusing to fill out all or part of form 6059-B.

I found this report of a guy who refused to fill out the part of the form asking for his destination address:

http://www.aarontitus.net/blog/2007/05/21/letter-to-department-of-homeland-security/

He just got delayed with no other consequences. I can't find any other info online though about refusing to fill out all or part of form 6059-B.

Hm. I'm entering the US at JFK in a couple weeks, US citizen, no connecting flight. I'll give it a whirl, no 4(a) and (b). Without DY...T let's see what's left.

("Ah, we've been expecting you. You like writing on blogs, huh? ...")

(lol the 3 letters removed by the smutblocker!)

Hm. I'm entering the US at JFK in a couple weeks, US citizen, no connecting flight. I'll give it a whirl, no 4(a) and (b). Without DY...T let's see what's left.

("Ah, we've been expecting you. You like writing on blogs, huh? ...")

(lol the 3 letters removed by the smutblocker!)


But we kind of already know from Mr. Titus what happens if you don't fill out 4(a) and 4(b). We need a guinea pig for what happens if you just leave the whole form blank. Or sign it but leave all the answers blank or write "I refuse to answer" above your signature. Surely someone has done this before, and I doubt there's much CBP can do other than detain you a bit.

But we kind of already know from Mr. Titus what happens if you don't fill out 4(a) and 4(b). We need a guinea pig for what happens if you just leave the whole form blank. Or sign it but leave all the answers blank or write "I refuse to answer" above your signature. Surely someone has done this before, and I doubt there's much CBP can do other than detain you a bit.

As noted in the blog. You get a secondary, they go through everything, including your wallet. Normally they find a license with an address (not saying it is correct address) and they fill it in for you.

I'd presume they then go through everything you are carrying and I'll also presume try and charge you absurd duty if you can't prove you took it with you???

But we kind of already know from Mr. Titus what happens if you don't fill out 4(a) and 4(b). We need a guinea pig for what happens if you just leave the whole form blank. Or sign it but leave all the answers blank or write "I refuse to answer" above your signature. Surely someone has done this before, and I doubt there's much CBP can do other than detain you a bit.

Yeah. The rest of the items are arguably "legitimate." Certainly less onerous (and more appropriate to the purported task) than the obedience conditioning stations operated by the TSA. I'm not prepared to take my "activities" to that level for the moment.

Questions 4(a) and (b) are not appropriate, not relevant, not "legitimate." The form says "must provide the following information." Incorrect. I draw the line. Props to Mr. Titus, and thanks to you for the link.

Questions 4(a) and (b) are not appropriate, not relevant, not "legitimate." The form says "must provide the following information." Incorrect. I draw the line. Props to Mr. Titus, and thanks to you for the link.
Well, appropriate for visitors to the US.

I agree that the other questions on the form might be more appropriate to law enforcement's efforts to determine if you are committing or have committed an illegal act. Which is all the more reason why some people may not want to fill out the form. If you answer "Are you carrying more than $10,000" with a "no," you can be charged with making a false statement if they find more than $10,000 on you.

I know that the CBP documentation says that the form is mandatory for all travelers, even citizens, but I'm just wondering if that's really true. Don't we have an equal right to refuse to answer written questions as we do oral questions, even if (and especially if) those written questions are appropriately tailored to determine if we have engaged in illegal acts?

I just don't see any upside to writing down what countries I've visited, whether I was on business, whether I'm carrying over $10,000, etc. I'm happy to give them my name, DOB, passport number, etc.

If you answer "Are you carrying more than $10,000" with a "no," you can be charged with making a false statement if they find more than $10,000 on you.
Tricky, though, because the Fifth Amendment only protects true statements.

Don't we have an equal right to refuse to answer written questions as we do oral questions,
Most certainly.

even if (and especially if) those written questions are appropriately tailored to determine if we have engaged in illegal acts?
But they're not (with the exception of the question about $10,000). They're to determine whether the traveler owes duties, which is not a crime. One could, certainly argue, however, that answering the question about currency could violate one's Fifth Amendment rights and that's an interesting point.

I've not refused the questions of the officers going to Europe or returning home to the states. I've gotten more hassle returning by car from Canada compared to by air into the USA.

I hope things are easier when I go to and from Dublin in late September through T2 in Ireland.

I agree that the other questions on the form might be more appropriate to law enforcement's efforts to determine if you are committing or have committed an illegal act. Which is all the more reason why some people may not want to fill out the form. If you answer "Are you carrying more than $10,000" with a "no," you can be charged with making a false statement if they find more than $10,000 on you.

I know that the CBP documentation says that the form is mandatory for all travelers, even citizens, but I'm just wondering if that's really true. Don't we have an equal right to refuse to answer written questions as we do oral questions, even if (and especially if) those written questions are appropriately tailored to determine if we have engaged in illegal acts?

I just don't see any upside to writing down what countries I've visited, whether I was on business, whether I'm carrying over $10,000, etc. I'm happy to give them my name, DOB, passport number, etc.

Hm again.

CBP Form 6059B includes:

CBP officers have the authority to question you and to examine you and your personal property. If you are one of the travelers selected for an examination, you will be treated in a courteous, professional and dignified manner.

That, I can go along with. Whether I "must provide the following information" is another matter entirely.

They do have a "legitimate" job to do. I choose to read the above phrase as: "Please provide the following information:"

Of couse, we should avoid making a false statement to a federal officer. If I was doing the proscribed illegal act, and perhaps randomly otherwise, I would simply decline to answer certain questions. They can't "punish" us for that, but the "upside" to answering the questions is, chances are their investigation (if any) will be quicker.

But Mr. Titus is right, that question is the least relevant to any "legitimate" function of the CBP (though, arguably, it serves an identification function), and is the best basis for challenging the "must provide" claim. 4(a), (b) and (c) (state) are OUT. Blank. I'm keeping my wool today.

(I wonder if they'll try to get one of my three "family members" to break ranks.)

I suppose if you're not going to answer question 4, you should leave your driver's license in your car. Don't give them the satisfaction of looking in your wallet and finding a driver's license with your address on it. And toss your luggage tags with your address as well.

Let me ask a related question: can U.S. citizens returning to the U.S. simply refuse to fill out the blue form 6059B? Would there be any negative repercussions other than secondary screening?

I think it would be pretty cool to walk up to the passport control booth and hand the officer a bank form 6059B and say "Hi, I don't fill these out."
And he says, "Step aside and fill it out while I process others".

What next?

This entire thread goes the same way. yes, one eventually gets back in to the US w/o being charged wth a crime.

But it might be a huge pain in the butt, and maybe even litteraly :eek:

And he says, "Step aside and fill it out while I process others".

What next?

This entire thread goes the same way. yes, one eventually gets back in to the US w/o being charged wth a crime.

But it might be a huge pain in the butt, and maybe even litteraly :eek:

It might be such a pain even for the innocent when submitting the completed forms. With CBP in charge and taking liberties, completing those forms is no guaranteed protection.

I am a US citizen who has been a non-resident since 1982. I have no address in the US and often when I arrive, I will either rent a plane or rent a car and continue on as long as safely possible before stopping for the night. Thus, since 1982 I have not filled out the address lines on the form. Back when Customs and Immigration were seperate, this only meant that I ran a higher risk of having my bags searched by Customs, but the Immigration guys never detained me.

The only airport that has ever detained me was JFK. I had been on a business trip to Kiev when my mother died and was headed back to MSY via JFK. All I knew was that family friends would pick me up at the airport. I did not know where I was spending the night and I have no idea where the funeral would be held. Even after explaining this, I was told that I would be spending a very long time in the airport if I didn't fill out an address and a supervisor was called.

After the supervisor explained that I could either spend the night waiting until they had time to get around to me or I could just put an address. When I asked him if he was telling me to falsify my content on the form, he confirmed to me that this was exactly what he wanted.

I took the badge number and name of the supervisor who had been called over, wrote in the margin: "Officer X, badge ##### has forced me to falsify an address on this form" and I promptly wrote down 666 Mickey Mouse Drive, New Orleans, LA and was waved through.

Non-resident citizens or citizens without firm travel plans IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY is just beyond their grasp.

If you think that's bad, you should see the Australian outgoing passenger cards, which require citizens to declare the purpose of their journey abroad, how long they will be away for, and so on.

.....All I knew was that family friends would pick me up at the airport. I did not know where I was spending the night and I have no idea where the funeral would be held. Even after explaining this, I was told that I would be spending a very long time in the airport if I didn't fill out an address and a supervisor was called.
....


I was on an incoming flight that landed in new zealand only long enough for folks to transfer. Flight got delayed, so hundreds of us had an unscheduled overnight stay and so nobody knew where we would be staying until after customs. Everyone left the address blank or wrote "TBD". Kiwi customs didn't mention it to anyone. Efficient and polite. Of course, that's a place where folks haven't gone insane yet.

I think one basic problem with the US TSA and CBP is due to the fact that they cannot scale to handle the numbers of people they deal with given their processes. So any kind of human consideration goes out the window and everything is treated as a shipping terminal with packages passing through. Throughput rates are what is important. This works out to nobody's satisfaction.

I think the best defense here is to complete the form, and that gives you as little drama as possible.

If the CBP or any other govt agency in any country wants to know where you are - they can find out pretty fast. Cell Phones usage, can be tracked to individual towers, your electronic payment tracks your location, credit card or debit card usuage.

I just complete the forms with the answers they want these days - pretty much the truth.

I had an argument with a Immigration Officer in Christchurch New Zealand, because I did not complete the box - length of stay in NZ.

Situation was this:
My Dad had died the previous night, I got the first flight SYD CHC - and had not idea how long or what I was going to find once I cleared arrival facilities. Did not even know where I was going to stay.
When I left Sydney - I was told "you will come back when you are ready"

Being Born in NZ but holding an Australian passport - I do not need a visa and can stay as long as I want.

So:
Q How long are you staying?
A Not sure at this stage
Q When is your return flight?
A I have not booked one yet
Q How long are you staying?
A As previously stated Not Sure at this stage
Q So why are you here today
A My Dad died last night, I got the first flight I could, at this stage I have no idea
Q Sorry to hear that -when do you think you will be going home
A I said I am due back at work at this stage in 10 days time - so hopefully before that

I think she wrote 10 days and allowed in me.

She did give me some attitude - but once she found out my Dad had died she sort of relented.

In future I would just write down 10 days.

Its easier than having an argument and possibly being sent for secondary

Might not be the answer to the principal - but I think its the answer to an easy process thru the arrivals formalities.

My jaw is dropping - are US citizens returning to their own country are required to fill in some entry forms?? Absolutely amazing :td:

Yes, here is the form:

http://www.ugandamission.net/travel/air/arriveus.html

As you can see, the form is a Customs form, not an Immigration form. With the reshuffle at CBP these lines became blurred and now the Immigrtion officers "enforce" the filling out of the form. For non-resident citizens this is a probem regarding 4a&4b.

As you can see, the form is a Customs form, not an Immigration form. With the reshuffle at CBP these lines became blurred and now the Immigrtion officers "enforce" the filling out of the form. For non-resident citizens this is a probem regarding 4a&4b.

Someone I know that lives abroad and has this problem always uses his brother's address (which he uses for tax purposes and 'legal' residence) on the form, even if he's not going there first or even at all on the trip. Never had any problems with doing that either afaik.

Someone I know that lives abroad and has this problem always uses his brother's address (which he uses for tax purposes and 'legal' residence) on the form, even if he's not going there first or even at all on the trip. Never had any problems with doing that either afaik.

Using his brother's address is at the limit because strictly speaking, if he isn't going there, then he is falsifying the information on the form. This is the whole issue that people like me have. If what he does is acceptable then why is the address needed?

? So he declares himself as a resident on the form but he isn't? Dangerous. Customs regulations are different for residents and non-residents, so that could get him into trouble. Then there is the IRS who could tax him as a resident, using his declarations on the form as reason for disallowing any foreign earned income credits.

Using his brother's address is at the limit because strictly speaking, if he isn't going there, then he is falsifying the information on the form. This is the whole issue that people like me have. If what he does is acceptable then why is the address needed?

? So he declares himself as a resident on the form but he isn't? Dangerous. Customs regulations are different for residents and non-residents, so that could get him into trouble. Then there is the IRS who could tax him as a resident, using his declarations on the form as reason for disallowing any foreign earned income credits.

I know, it might not be the most correct thing to do, but what is then? When it says 'U.S. Street Address (destination)' it could seem like they want your address and the destination part is just a suggestion. If we knew why they wanted it it might help us write the address that they really want on the form.

Of course he answers questions honestly, and as far as I have heard has never had any trouble with customs, not that he brings much with him when he travels. As for the taxes, he has a good tax lawyer so that all gets sorted out somehow.

It depends on what kind of mood I am in but yes I have refused to give them anything other than my name, I am a US citizen, and that I have nothing to declare.

One time when doing this a cop that overheard this made up a story on the spot that he had heard me telling someone that I had facke ID (it seems that government agents are VERY practiced, and accomplished liars.)

Anyhow they took me in an put me on the special digital finger print reader (which I should have refused in hindsight)

After that they tended to leave me alone as they learned I was not a sheep but rather a sheep-dog. When you do things like this you not only protect your rights. You protect the rights of everyone.



I've read a few posts from people on this forum saying that they refuse to answer when TSA agents ask them to state their names or ask where they are flying.


The TSA agent questions are far less intrusive than the questions that Customs and Border Protection officers ask when you re-enter the country. In my personal experience, those questions can include:

"Where are you coming from?"
"How long have you been away from the U.S.?"
"What were you doing in country x?"
"Why are you traveling alone?"
"How much did you spend on your trip?
"What do you do for a living?"
"What hotel did you stay at?"

Do any Americans here refuse to answer these questions? I suspect it would drive the CBP officers a bit nuts if you stood there absolutely mute, because then they wouldn't even be able to tell if you spoke English like an American-born American passport holder should (in their eyes).

Anyway, I always cooperate and answer when CBP officers ask me questions, I'm not a privacy/civil rights nut. But I'm curious if anyone here refuses to answer their questions and what the repercussions are. I suspect the main consequence would be that you get sent to secondary screening. I don't know if they can do much more than that to an American who has a right to re-enter the country.

It depends on what kind of mood I am in but yes I have refused to give them anything other than my name, I am a US citizen, and that I have nothing to declare.

One time when doing this a cop that overheard this made up a story on the spot that he had heard me telling someone that I had facke ID (it seems that government agents are VERY practiced, and accomplished liars.)



Interesting. Has this included not filling out the form, or do you fill out the form and just refused to answer subsewuent questions? And aside from the experience with the eavesdropping cop, what usually happens, when you refuse to give anything other than your name? Just a long delay and then you are let go?

In my personal experience, those questions can include:

"Where are you coming from?"
"How long have you been away from the U.S.?"
"What were you doing in country x?"
"Why are you traveling alone?"
"How much did you spend on your trip?
"What do you do for a living?"
"What hotel did you stay at?"



Very strange questions for returning citizens. As an EU citizen, returning to the EU, it is inconceivable to be asked any of the above, except maybe "where are you coming from?". Customs may of course also ask "Anything to declare?"

Just found this apropos trip report:

http://nomadlaw.com/2010/04/i-am-detained-by-feds-for-not-answering-questions/

Makes merely leaving 4(a), (b) and (c) blank seem lacking. "None of your business," love it.

Very strange questions for returning citizens. As an EU citizen, returning to the EU, it is inconceivable to be asked any of the above, except maybe "where are you coming from?". Customs may of course also ask "Anything to declare?"

some of these questions are on the form you turn in on your return to the US. (eg, which countries visited). The questions CBP asks seem designed to help them gauge you better. In the interest of picking battles, declining to provide information at CBP checkpoints once inside the US may be a better place to expend effort.

I will say that it was striking to me on a recent return trip from AKL and SYD, just how lively and unconcerned people were going through security at those locations. In contrast, US citizens coming in to the CBP checkpoint at SFO were noticeably subdued and silent, as under a threat, with several making efforts to ingratiate themselves with the screeners. A fearfulness. This despite the fact that the CBP personnel appeared to be nearly as courteous and polite as their foreign counterparts. It tells me that many of these incoming citizens have either had bad experiences or fear the randomness and domination that CBP can exercise over you any time they want.

...JFK...

I took the badge number and name of the supervisor who had been called over, wrote in the margin: "Officer X, badge ##### has forced me to falsify an address on this form" and I promptly wrote down 666 Mickey Mouse Drive, New Orleans, LA and was waved through.

Should have put something like
John F. Kennedy International Airport
JFK Expy & S Cargo Rd
Jamaica, NY 11430

Very strange questions for returning citizens. As an EU citizen, returning to the EU, it is inconceivable to be asked any of the above, except maybe "where are you coming from?". Customs may of course also ask "Anything to declare?"

Simple reason for this.
EU Law states that once the identity of the passenger has been established as bonafide, all questions must cease and the passenger must be admitted to the country. This means that questions regarding your passport may be asked and there have been legitimate cases for asking where you originated from, but beyond that it is pretty much illegal for immigration officers to question a returning citizen.

Just came through at JFK T8 yesterday.

CBP agent said I need to fill out item 4. I said, no I don't. He said, "Excuse me?" I said, it's not required. He said, "Are you a CBP agent?" I said, "No, I'm an attorney, and I know the law."

Mrs. GaryD intervened, and jotted down our home address. CBP agent looked shocked, said nothing further, no issues at customs. At least, my kid got my point.

If you think that's bad, you should see the Australian outgoing passenger cards, which require citizens to declare the purpose of their journey abroad, how long they will be away for, and so on.

My jaw is dropping - are US citizens returning to their own country are required to fill in some entry forms?? Absolutely amazing :td:

Perhaps this will drop your jaw even more, I know it did mine, and I simply would not believe it unless we had personally experienced it a couple of weeks back.

Location: Land crossing HWY US 97, Oroville, WA outbound; ie US to Canada. The entry to Canada is backed up ~ 6 cars deep. Two US CBP agents are out on the road on either side of the traffic lane harassing outbound travellers in each car as it draws up to the end of the line. Because the border marking is not clear it's not readily apparent which side of the border they are on, but I doubt even CBP would have the temerity to do this on the Canadian side of the line.

As we pulled up, the questions started with where do you live? Where is the car from? When they sensed my unease with this process for outbound, one agent wanted to know why I seemed agitated. When I answered that I didn't think that outbound inspections were legitimate, or permitted in the U.S., the more aggressive of the two agents asked if I was a U.S. citizen. When I told him no, he asserted that I was a guest in the U.S. and needed to conform with whatever process they chose to implement. (Being a lawful permanent U.S. resident, I suppose I must be some kind of no-rights non-individual.)

I was directed to "pop the trunk" (none of the subterfuge of "Do you mind if I look in the trunk" so popular in the police videos you see on TV.) Only at this time did these two get around to "getting a deposition" which, apparently means asking if I'm transporting > $10,000 of monetary instruments, probably the single justifiable part of this whole disgusting exercise. One agent asks if there is a diabetic on board. I try to get out to see what he's doing in the trunk, and what prompted this question, and am ordered by the second agent to stay in the car. The second agent stands in a position which blocks me from even attempting to open the door to get out and see what's going on with my personal belongings in the trunk. I can only imagine the consequences of striking the agent with the car door if I were to attempt to get out and observe. After giving them a full rundown of every medication the two of us are taking, the agents lose interest, close the trunk, and allow us to move on. Later, I find my "gag" hypodermic pen apparently left on the floor of the trunk by the agent after he had finished rummaging through my bags.

This country was, not long ago, not like this. When a person presented themselves at a port of entry they knew that this type of search was actually a (slim) possibility. When a person was going through a port of entry on their way out, this type of cr@p, in the U.S.A. was just inconceivable. We used to be able to read constitutional amendments and believe the words had deep meaning and incredible power. Now the concept of unreasonable search and seizure has been diluted to the point it merely means whatever some policy wonk at DHS unilaterally deems it to mean.

Now the 200 mile "search at will" zones will, for us, press much closer to home. We'll be videotaping next time. Maybe we can add a Northern component to the web-sites that document this type of pathetic behavior along the desert areas in the Southwest.

As a citizen of the UK as well as the US I can confirm the difference in entry procedure - at the UK border entry allowed after passport is swiped - no questions asked. Entry to the US always involve some questions ranging from a couple to a whole lot. Although I have not been a US Citizen very long (about 2 years) this seems to be the common trend. One time the guy started asking so many questions (at ORD) I was about to ask to see a supervisor. However he stopped just as I was about to do that.

As a citizen of the UK as well as the US I can confirm the difference in entry procedure - at the UK border entry allowed after passport is swiped - no questions asked. Entry to the US always involve some questions ranging from a couple to a whole lot. Although I have not been a US Citizen very long (about 2 years) this seems to be the common trend. One time the guy started asking so many questions (at ORD) I was about to ask to see a supervisor. However he stopped just as I was about to do that.

This is one reason alone to have Global Entry. Number of questions or waits at airports since obtaining GE: 0. Also, I've noticed that the UK passport control officers do ask more questions than most countries, behind only the US and Canada. I thought I read that as an EU passport holder they're not allowed to ask you questions (or at least most questions)?

This is one reason alone to have Global Entry. Number of questions or waits at airports since obtaining GE: 0. Also, I've noticed that the UK passport control officers do ask more questions than most countries, behind only the US and Canada. I thought I read that as an EU passport holder they're not allowed to ask you questions (or at least most questions)?

If my memory serves me correctly EU passport holders go through the same line in the UK as UK citizens but I have no idea if they ask any/more questions of EU passport holders than they do of the Citizens. Not sure how they are to deal with as non-EU citizens on entry. I believe they can be also quite obnoxious depending on who you get although I think based on what I've heard from people, the US probably takes on of the top spots for that - I'm mainly referring to how they treat non-Citizens.

Whilst poor behavior and excessive questioning cannot be condoned towards any traveler doing that towards a returning citizen is ridiculous. Never understood it myself. Funny thing is for all these years as a non-Citizen I was never questioned the way I was during that ORD incident.

I should probably consider getting GE.

If my memory serves me correctly EU passport holders go through the same line in the UK as UK citizens but I have no idea if they ask any/more questions of EU passport holders than they do of the Citizens

EU passport holders go through the citizen lane. A friend of mine was going through with a passport from an EU country (non-UK), and the passport control officer simply said, "Welcome home." I ironically had the same officer due to the queue from the "All other passports" line, and he was asking me about my travel plans and duration of stay. It was nothing obnoxious, but I found it amusing. EU/EFTA/EEA passports also do not fill out a landing card.

As an EU-citizen I haven't been asked any questions entering ANY EU-country, with the rare exception at HEL, asking "where are you coming from?" - my guess is that they asked so as to man more booths if the incoming is from PEK as opposed to say LHR or BUH

(Same passport in pre-EU days - often several quesitons pertaining to length of stay and reassn of visit. At LHR always questioned)

Just came through at JFK T8 yesterday.

CBP agent said I need to fill out item 4. I said, no I don't. He said, "Excuse me?" I said, it's not required. He said, "Are you a CBP agent?" I said, "No, I'm an attorney, and I know the law."

Mrs. GaryD intervened, and jotted down our home address. CBP agent looked shocked, said nothing further, no issues at customs. At least, my kid got my point.

It dawns on me that I never initialed item 4 (in a different hand and color), and Mrs. GaryD never signed it, all in front of the CBP agent. So much for the "required" information.

Leave item 4 blank! "I haven't decided where I'm staying tonight."

This is one reason alone to have Global Entry. Number of questions or waits at airports since obtaining GE: 0. Also, I've noticed that the UK passport control officers do ask more questions than most countries, behind only the US and Canada. I thought I read that as an EU passport holder they're not allowed to ask you questions (or at least most questions)?

That's correct. Once an EU border agent has established that you are an EU citizen, there is very little they are allowed to do other than allow you on your way (unless some extreme circumstances apply, such as you coming up as wanted on their system).

The UK has recently brought in a procedure that under-18s will get extra questioning to establish whether they require safeguarding.

Well, I started this thread and I finally tried this gambit myself and it did not go well. "Why did you visit country x?" "I'd rather not say."

Oh wow, they did not like this one bit. There was no "OK, we respect your right not to answer, please proceed towards a reasonable secondary inspection." It was full on animosity and belligerence and "You have no rights at the border and we're going to seize all your electronic devices and keep you here all day so you'd better just answer, and how do you feel about going to the hospital with us to have your stomach X rayed for drugs?"

I ended up with a 2 hour detention even though I caved and basically started singing like a canary after ten minutes.

Rights or no rights, I don't have the stomach for this type of thing. Also, I like my iPad.

So if anyone else wants to give it a go, be prepared that they will examine the contents of your wallet (I'm not a big wallet privacy guy and was expecting this, but it seems to be routine), they will not like it if you have dumped all your business cards beforehand and have no proof of employment, they may seize all of your electronic devices (I talked them out of this after volunteering to turn on the devices and enter the passwords) and I think my detention was only two hours because it was last flight of the day so there was nothing else going on.

... I answered that I didn't think that outbound inspections were legitimate, or permitted in the U.S., ...
You were not right - the outbound inspections are permitted in the US. The CBP chooses not to conduct them in most circumstances, but they can if they want to.

They check outbound cars on I-5 in Blaine quite often, usually when there is a queue at the Canadian booths. While I do not disagree with outbound inspections per se, I do not think it should go beyond checking the travel documents to confirm citizenship (and the length of stay in the country for visitors).

You were not right - the outbound inspections are permitted in the US. The CBP chooses not to conduct them in most circumstances, but they can if they want to.

They check outbound cars on I-5 in Blaine quite often, usually when there is a queue at the Canadian booths. While I do not disagree with outbound inspections per se, I do not think it should go beyond checking the travel documents to confirm citizenship (and the length of stay in the country for visitors).

However, the immigration aspect of the outbound inspection is just a small part of the whole inspection. US Customs and Border Protection Officers enforce a large gamut of laws and regulations. Those laws include numerous export laws as well as immigration. Those various export laws are also in play during outbound inspections.

FB

I earned a bag search returning PVG - DTW for my girlfriend (at the time, now my wife) when the CBP asked "What is the nature of your relationship", I responded "romantic". He sneered at me, marked up my customs form, and I enjoyed a bag search. We are both US citizens.

Wel, I started this thread and I finally tried this gambit myself and it did not go well. "Why did you visit country x?" "I'd rather not say."

Oh wow, they did not like this one bit. There was no "OK, we respect your right not to answer, please proceed towards a reasonable secondary inspection." It was full on animosity and belligerence and "You have no rights at the border and we're going to seize all your electronic devices and keep you here all day so you'd better just answer, and how do you feel about going to the hospital with us to have your stomach X rayed for drugs?"

I ended up with a 2 hour detention even though I caved and basically started singing like a canary after ten minutes.

Rights or no rights, I don't have the stomach for this type of thing. Also, I like my iPad.

So if anyone else wants to give it a go, be prepared that they will examine the contents of your wallet (I'm not a big wallet privacy guy and was expecting this, but it seems to be routine), they will not like it if you have dumped all your business cards beforehand and have no proof of employment, they may seize all of your electronic devices (I talked them out of this after volunteering to turn on the devices and enter the passwords) and I think my detention was only two hours because it was last flight of the day so there was nothing else going on.

"They may seize all of your electronic devices"??

The rest of it, I consider to be bluffing. Sure, they can cause you delays, and I might fold, to avoid that. But this, I would call them on.

Ipad? Cell phone? Itunes? Laptop?

Seize, and never give back?

Has that ever happened? I would have let them cross that line, just for the honor of it. :rolleyes:

"They may seize all of your electronic devices"??

The rest of it, I consider to be bluffing. Sure, they can cause you delays, and I might fold, to avoid that. But this, I would call them on.

Ipad? Cell phone? Itunes? Laptop?

Seize, and never give back?
No, sieze until they've finished studying them, which can be many months. It's very real and there have been court cases about it. In fact, if you look at signage at some international gates, you'll even see a DHS/CBP notice about it.

However, the immigration aspect of the outbound inspection is just a small part of the whole inspection. US Customs and Border Protection Officers enforce a large gamut of laws and regulations. Those laws include numerous export laws as well as immigration. Those various export laws are also in play during outbound inspections.
That is why I disagree with the concept of putting a single CBP officer in charge of conducting both immigration and customs inspections. When CBP officers ask returning US citizens a bunch of mixed immigration/customs questions, sometimes you start wondering how most of those questions relate to you being admitted into your own country. I much prefer the way it is done in many other countries where immigration and customs inspections are separate. Same should apply to [very rare] outbound inspections.

By the way, nice to see you again on FT.

Same should apply to [very rare] outbound inspections.
I don't follow. Outbound inspections are always just Customs and no Immigration. So there would seem to be no confusion there.

That is why I disagree with the concept of putting a single CBP officer in charge of conducting both immigration and customs inspections. When CBP officers ask returning US citizens a bunch of mixed immigration/customs questions, sometimes you start wondering how most of those questions relate to you being admitted into your own country. I much prefer the way it is done in many other countries where immigration and customs inspections are separate. Same should apply to [very rare] outbound inspections.

By the way, nice to see you again on FT.

This is not a new concept at all. Even before the creation of Customs and Border Protection, Immigration Inspectors and Customs Inspectors were cross designated. The officers have always had the ability to enforce both Title 8 and Title 19. The difference now is the level of training the officer receives. It is much more than the small amount that he or she used to receive to get that cross designation.

CBP officers, like it used to be even before the merge, also enforce laws and regulations for 22 separate agencies. Do you think that those 22 other agencies should be present to each do their part of the inspection? Are you prepared to talk to 25 separate individuals as part of the inspection process to enter the country? I doubt that you or anyone else including the government would like that idea.

The officers are interested in processing individuals as quickly as possible but also as correctly as possible. Almost every question that is asked is to that end. I went back and re-read this thread. It re-enforced what I have come to believe for quite some time now. Just as the average traveler, and I am including frequent travelers as well, are sometimes incredulous and insulted by the questions asked, the CBP officer is just as incredulous and yes sometimes insulted as why that the traveler is unwilling to respond to the question.

In my experience, this is largely due to a lack of understanding as to the purpose of the questions on the traveler's part and a lack of ability on the officer's part to adequately explain the purpose of the questions to the traveler satisfaction. You don't even have to go far to find examples of this on this forum. In this thread alone, people seem to take offense to question 4 on the customs declaration. This can help determine if the traveler is actually a resident or a non-resident. The problem with forms is that if all the information and variables were included to explain why the information is needed it would no longer be a form. It would be a book.

People on the forum have said I am not answering questions everything that is needed is on the customs form I just gave you. That is correct. However, the officer is required to give that person a opportunity to amend that declaration. That is done by asking questions concerning the information on the form. The officers don't get to just ask if you want to change anything. The questions have to be specific so that there is no misunderstanding in what is being asked or what the answers are.

The officers don't personally care where you live or do they personally care visitors are staying. The information is needed to process you in the time frame that you are in front of them ie determine residency, for visitors it is for a starting point to locate you should that need arise. It does not need to be a criminal reason either, there are other situations that could arise, they are rare and unlikely, thankfully, because they involve public health.

Largely the impression is that the officers are out to get the traveler. The vast majority of the time that is just not the case, the officer just wants the information necessary to get you on your way. The officer is well aware that the vast majority of the people that he interacts with on a daily basis are law abiding travelers. The agency goes to great lengths to ensure that the officers are aware of that. However, part of the officer’s job, is to locate the very small portion of the travelers that are not law abiding. This is sometimes easy and it is sometimes very difficult.

It gets more difficult when a traveler decides they are going to purposefully be uncooperative. I am aware that sometimes the individual is trying to prove a point. It is certainly within that traveler’s purview to do that. What the traveler doesn't always understand is that the traveler very often does not know the rules, laws, and regulations as well as they think they do and are operating on assumptions that are incorrect. The traveler also doesn't realize that when they are proving their point many times they begin to appear like that person who is not law abiding that the officer is looking for. Sometimes this this behavior is obvious and it can be distinguished for what it is (someone trying to prove a point) sometimes not so much and very often it is dependent on the officer’s experience.

Well I am getting long winded again as I often do. The fact is it really makes no difference if it is one officer or two officers asking the questions. The questions are the same no matter who is asking them. The fact that a US Citizen is not going to be refused entry to the United States doesn't change regardless of who is asking the questions. That doesn't change as long as the officer is satisfied that the individual in front of them is a US citizen. That has not changed because of the formation of CBP.

FB

I don't follow. Outbound inspections are always just Customs and no Immigration. So there would seem to be no confusion there.

This is not correct. While the vast majority of outbound inspections have a customs slant, they also include immigration aspects as well. Prior to the merge of Customs and Immigration and the creation of CBP, you could have two flavors of outbound inspections. In practice, this did not occur very often because Immigration never had the staff to spare to perform outbound inspections. This was especially true in the airport environment that the posters in this forum are most accustomed to. This was because of the requirement that Immigration talk to and processes every individual that made entry at that port. Customs had the ability to pick and choose who they were going to talk to and inspect. This gave them the ability to conduct many more outbound inspections than Immigration.

FB

. . .

The officers are interested in processing individuals as quickly as possible but also as correctly as possible. Almost every question that is asked is to that end.

. . .



I appreciate your lengthy, informative reply. I do have a serious question: If I present my US passport, what other questions are needed to satisfy the immigration part of the interview? What better proof of citizenship can I present? And if I have proved my citizenship can I assume that all questions after that point are not related to immigration? If not, why not?

I recently presented my US passport, told them repeatedly in an American accent that I did not want to answer questions about the purpose of my trip abroad, and the supervisor tld the officer to refer me to "secondary -- customs and immigration."

They asked a lot of questions about what I do for a living, why I was refusing to answer, where I was born, who paid for my ticket, how I purchased it, where I went to college, where else I've traveled, etc.

They seemed to think that because I refused to answer I must either be a terrorist or a drug smuggler or not a real citizen.

So if you present a U.S. passport and say in an American accent "I was away on vacation" they can confirm that you are a U.S. citizen in about 2seconds.

If you present a U.S. passport and say "I'd rather not say why I was away" then it takes them two hours to confirm that you are a U.S. citizen.

Go figure.

...

The officers are interested in processing individuals as quickly as possible but also as correctly as possible. Almost every question that is asked is to that end. I went back and re-read this thread. It re-enforced what I have come to believe for quite some time now. Just as the average traveler, and I am including frequent travelers as well, are sometimes incredulous and insulted by the questions asked, the CBP officer is just as incredulous and yes sometimes insulted as why that the traveler is unwilling to respond to the question.

In my experience, this is largely due to a lack of understanding as to the purpose of the questions on the traveler's part and a lack of ability on the officer's part to adequately explain the purpose of the questions to the traveler satisfaction. You don't even have to go far to find examples of this on this forum. In this thread alone, people seem to take offense to question 4 on the customs declaration. This can help determine if the traveler is actually a resident or a non-resident.

OK. So, question 7, "country of residence," is not enough.

But, if the answer to 7 is "<not U.S.A.>", then question 4 is not necessary. If the answer to 7 is "U.S.A.", then question 4 may be used as evidence of a false answer to question 7. Any other purpose, for a U.S. citizen traveler?

The problem with forms is that if all the information and variables were included to explain why the information is needed it would no longer be a form. It would be a book.

People on the forum have said I am not answering questions everything that is needed is on the customs form I just gave you. That is correct. However, the officer is required to give that person a opportunity to amend that declaration. That is done by asking questions concerning the information on the form. The officers don't get to just ask if you want to change anything. The questions have to be specific so that there is no misunderstanding in what is being asked or what the answers are.

The officers don't personally care where you live or do they personally care visitors are staying. The information is needed to process you in the time frame that you are in front of them ie determine residency, for visitors it is for a starting point to locate you should that need arise. It does not need to be a criminal reason either, there are other situations that could arise, they are rare and unlikely, thankfully, because they involve public health.

Largely the impression is that the officers are out to get the traveler. The vast majority of the time that is just not the case, the officer just wants the information necessary to get you on your way.

No, it's certainly not personal. It's what the officer represents, very typically unwittingly. Of course, officers are trained to believe that the questions are both necessary and appropriate, and, of course, legal.

The officer is well aware that the vast majority of the people that he interacts with on a daily basis are law abiding travelers. The agency goes to great lengths to ensure that the officers are aware of that. However, part of the officer’s job, is to locate the very small portion of the travelers that are not law abiding. This is sometimes easy and it is sometimes very difficult.

It gets more difficult when a traveler decides they are going to purposefully be uncooperative. I am aware that sometimes the individual is trying to prove a point. It is certainly within that traveler’s purview to do that. What the traveler doesn't always understand is that the traveler very often does not know the rules, laws, and regulations as well as they think they do and are operating on assumptions that are incorrect.

Hmm. What the officer doesn't always understand is that the officer very often does not know the rules, laws, and regulations (and constitution) as well as they think they do and are operating on assumptions that are incorrect.

The traveler also doesn't realize that when they are proving their point many times they begin to appear like that person who is not law abiding that the officer is looking for. Sometimes this this behavior is obvious and it can be distinguished for what it is (someone trying to prove a point) sometimes not so much and very often it is dependent on the officer’s experience.

...

I gather, then, that the appearance of "someone trying to prove a point" is not so infrequent.

OK. So, question 7, "country of residence," is not enough.

But, if the answer to 7 is "<not U.S.A.>", then question 4 is not necessary. If the answer to 7 is "U.S.A.", then question 4 may be used as evidence of a false answer to question 7. Any other purpose, for a U.S. citizen traveler?


Customs/import allowances are contingent upon residency status rather than citizenship/immigration-related status.

I appreciate your lengthy, informative reply. I do have a serious question: If I present my US passport, what other questions are needed to satisfy the immigration part of the interview? What better proof of citizenship can I present? And if I have proved my citizenship can I assume that all questions after that point are not related to immigration? If not, why not?

You are more than likely a law abiding traveler. I have seen many many US Passports presented to officers by individuals that were not US Citizens. That is why questions may be necessary to confirm that the person is actually a US Citizen. Some of those documents are of very bad quality and are obviously tampered with, counterfeit ETC. Others are of very good quality and are not so easy to identify on primary.

This doesn't even begin to address the imposters to a valid document. The passport is a valid document issued to an individual by the US Government just not the person presenting that document. Technology can help with detecting this type of fraud but it takes time for the equipment to come on line. Of course, even that doesn't help when the law abiding traveler thwarts that effort by tampering with the passport by de-activating the chip say by hammer etc. of course at that point the traveler is no longer law abiding.

The next type of fraud to discuss is the person who obtained his US Passport by fraud. In that case, the document is real and valid. The bio is going to match and the info on the chip would match as well. This is the most difficult type of fraud to discover but it is not impossible. It most often is discovered because the individual is nervous and there answers to the questions don't make sense.

The point being is the US Passport in your hand is not the end all be all proof of citizenship. That is why the law states that the officer has to be satisfied that the person in front of them is a US Citizen. That is accomplished many times by asking questions. The examination and inspection process is a multi-facet kind of thing. It does not focus on the document. It is a whole picture, the person, document, and the story. Now I start to sound like an academy instructor but that is what it is. Most often it is not the document that is the smuggler’s or the person attempting any type of illegal entry, downfall. It usually is the person exhibits nervous characteristics and mannerisms. This leads to questions which many times does not make sense. The document is usually the last piece of the puzzle to be fit into the whole picture. That is because the document can actually be the piece that can take the longest to verify. This, however, is getting better as time passes because of computerization and access to databases improve.

The bottom line is there is a purpose for the questions. It is not to harass the traveler in anyway. That does not mean that officers are perfect. They make mistakes for many reasons usually inexperience being the number one cause. And to beat those on the forum who will point it out, yes there are officers who will abuse the authority that is given to them. That is why there are avenues to address those issues. Use the opportunity to speak with supervisors, use the phone numbers provided. It is noted and follow up is done. You may not be directly told what happens but supervisors and managers are required to follow up.

FB

This is not correct. While the vast majority of outbound inspections have a customs slant, they also include immigration aspects as well.
You lost me here. Almost by definition, "Immigration" refers to people coming in to a country. What kind of immigration "aspect" would be involved in an outbound inspection? Even if somebody is out of status, they are self-deporting.

. . .

I have seen many many US Passports presented to officers by individuals that were not US Citizens. That is why questions may be necessary to confirm that the person is actually a US Citizen.

(much explanation deleted)



Again, I appreciate your response and I understand the concept that a passport may or may not be legitimate and may or may not be the actual passport of the person presenting it. What I am struggling to understand is what sort of questions "may be necessary to confirm that the person is actually a US Citizen."

I'm having a hard time conceiving what specific questions could be asked, and which answers to them, would be more dispositive of citizenship than a valid passport with a picture that matched the individual presenting it. Could you provide a few examples?

I recently presented my US passport, told them repeatedly in an American accent that I did not want to answer questions about the purpose of my trip abroad, and the supervisor tld the officer to refer me to "secondary -- customs and immigration."

They asked a lot of questions about what I do for a living, why I was refusing to answer, where I was born, who paid for my ticket, how I purchased it, where I went to college, where else I've traveled, etc.

They seemed to think that because I refused to answer I must either be a terrorist or a drug smuggler or not a real citizen.

So if you present a U.S. passport and say in an American accent "I was away on vacation" they can confirm that you are a U.S. citizen in about 2seconds.

If you present a U.S. passport and say "I'd rather not say why I was away" then it takes them two hours to confirm that you are a U.S. citizen.

Go figure.

That depends on the manner that you answer the questions and it doesn't really matter what the questions is. The officer is trying to gauge your response and mannerisms. If you don't give any response at all, it becomes very difficult to gauge your response and mannerisms. If you answer that you were away on vacation and it is consistent with the rest of the information that goes with the inspection the officer is comfortable and is satisfied with your citizenship you are quite correct the inspection process can be quite rapid.

If you state I'd rather not say why I was away, you can begin to appear evasive. Many times people are evasive because they are hiding contraband, attempting illegal entry, assisting someone else smuggling or attempting illegal entry. Sometimes people don't really want law enforcement or the government to know they were overseas attending a madrassa. I have seen that before and certainly understand the hesitation in telling me that. As many times that I have seen people be evasive for the reasons above, I have seen people be evasive for maybe not innocent reasons but reasons the officer really doesn't care about. Examples, of this include affairs, folks keeping slush funds on the side so that the significant other doesn't know that they go to Vegas once a month.

Things that trigger addition questions can have very plausible explanations. In the above non-criminal but sensitive cases it may be that the ticket was purchased with cash. The person doesn't want the significant other to pick up the paper trail on the credit card account. The officer really doesn't care he just wants to determine that laws are not being broken.

When it appears that you are being evasive, it is not taking two hours to determine you are a US Citizen. It is taking time to try to determine why you are being evasive to begin with. Sometimes the officer is successful sometimes he is not. However, the officer is required to attempt to determine the reason.

Believe it or not the bad guys rarely just up and admit they are the bad guys. That usually has to be determined by interview; sometimes it even takes the span of multiple interviews over multiple trips to determine the person is actually committing an offense. It sometimes even takes the assistance of other agencies that operate outside of the airport using some small bit of information that was obtained during an inspection.

The officer cannot control your responses. If you choose to not answer the officer and it appears that you are evading not providing information that the officer needs to complete the inspection the officer has to do his job

go figure

I appreciate your thoughtful replies.

Here's where I think we have a disagreement. I don't think the government needs to know where I go and what I do whenever I leave the country. I don't think the officer needs to know these things in order to complete his inspection, i.e. to determine whether I am a U.S. citizen or whether I am bringing back in contraband.

More importantly, a passenger's invocation of his right not to answer shouldn't be termed "evasiveness" or construed as evidence of guilt. Officers shouldn't say "Well, since you won't answer, we're going to seize your electronic equipment."

Lastly, I don't have the experience that you do, but I would guess that bad guys don't invoke their rights not to answer and thereby call attention to themselves. Bad guys try to blend in by answering the questions like everyone else and then simply lying.

I think part of the problem is that I get the feeling that very, very few law abiding passengers simply refuse to answer for the sake of preserving personal privacy. If more passengers started doing this, perhaps the officers would stop assuming guilt whenever someone said "I'd rather not answer that."

Customs/import allowances are contingent upon residency status rather than citizenship/immigration-related status.

Right. So, if the traveler has already stated that he or she is a U.S. resident (in response to question 7), and presents a U.S. Passport, what then is the purpose of asking for a U.S. street address (in question 4)?

Is my question.

Firebug4 suggested: "This can help determine if the traveler is actually a resident or a non-resident."

I then wrote:

If the answer to 7 is "U.S.A.", then question 4 may be used as evidence of a false answer to question 7. Any other purpose, for a U.S. citizen traveler?

[QUOTE]OK. So, question 7, "country of residence," is not enough.

But, if the answer to 7 is "<not U.S.A.>", then question 4 is not necessary. If the answer to 7 is "U.S.A.", then question 4 may be used as evidence of a false answer to question 7. Any other purpose, for a U.S. citizen traveler?


Remember the part later in this post where you try to imply that the officers don't know the rules, laws, and regulations very well. I can't speak for the every officer, but I can tell you that the officers are well trained. They spend a long time in the academy and even longer in post academy training. I can also tell you it appears that they know the rules, laws and regulations better that you do. That is because if you have to ask the above question you don't understand the Customs laws of the United States. Residency for customs purposes have nothing to do with your citizenship. You can also be asked the same question both orally or in writing because that law that you think the officer doesn't understand requires you to be given a opportunity to amend your declaration.



No, it's certainly not personal. It's what the officer represents, very typically unwittingly. Of course, officers are trained to believe that the questions are both necessary and appropriate, and, of course, legal.



So what is it that the officer represents? These are all really old topics. They have been tested numerous times in the courts. The court has repeatedly held that a country has the power to protect it sovereignty and its borders. The methods currently being used have also been tested numerous times in the courts. They so far have been upheld. Will this always be the case? No one knows but if the courts rule a different way than policies will change, methods change and how the officers do their job will change. I personally have seen a few changes over the years. It really doesn't matter what the officer believes or doesn't believe. It matters what the courts believe.

Hmm. What the officer doesn't always understand is that the officer very often does not know the rules, laws, and regulations (and constitution) as well as they think they do and are operating on assumptions that are incorrect.


That officer has much more training in the law, regulations and the constitution than you realize. It is continually ongoing. In terms of the constitution alone there is an annual refresher/update that is a minimum. Most field offices are doing more than the minimum. Since you brought up the topic of the constitution I might suggest that you go back and actually read that document from start to finish. I believe that you would be shocked to discover that all of the authority being used today by the modern customs service comes from that document but not in the form that you believe. The Customs service (not in the form we know today) was created by the fifth act of Congress that would put it right in the beginning of the whole country. The customs service had much more authority under the laws in place in 1789 than it does today. I believe that you would be very surprised that the leeway that was legally given to the customs service to search and collect tariffs by the laws in place at the time. Those search authorities that were used then would never stand court tests today. There are many topics in that document that today because of court interpretations just don't mean the same things that those words meant back then. That is the system that we operate under in this country. The policies that are in place in any law enforcement agency not just CBP are usually crafted based upon not only the constitution but every court decision since the ratification of that document. That is why just reading the constitution does not tell the whole story you have to read everything connected to the topic. That is a daunting task for anyone and certainly beyond the expectations of the average law enforcement officer. That is law enforcement agencies employee lawyers to review their policies and procedures to keep them up to date. Even then it still takes a court to make a final determination.


I gather, then, that the appearance of "someone trying to prove a point" is not so infrequent.

No, it is not infrequent at all. However, frequently the individual is misinformed, incorrect, and doesn't have a legal basis to be doing what they are attempting to do. That is because many times the individual is following advice they got on an internet forum from someone they never met who usually doesn't know any more than the individual did to begin with and it happens more and more as the internet increases the amount of information available. Unfortunately, there is no filter that ensures that the information is accurate. Much more frequently, the officer is well within their legal authority. That is because the officer, if following policy, is doing procedures that have already past legal muster. Again, that is not to say mistakes are not made and officers are never incorrect.

FB

Again, I appreciate your response and I understand the concept that a passport may or may not be legitimate and may or may not be the actual passport of the person presenting it. What I am struggling to understand is what sort of questions "may be necessary to confirm that the person is actually a US Citizen."

I'm having a hard time conceiving what specific questions could be asked, and which answers to them, would be more dispositive of citizenship than a valid passport with a picture that matched the individual presenting it. Could you provide a few examples?

I'm not the expert but I'll take a stab at this since I was asked the following questions that seem citizenship-related:

Where were you born?
What's your date of birth?
Where do you live?
(Thumbing through my passport) "When did you visit x, when did you visit y"

Obviously, someone could memorize answers to questions like these from details of a passport that didn't belong to them, but I'd say that if you answered these questions orally and your answers didn't match your passport, they'd have a pretty good suspicion that you might be holding someone else's passport and might not be a citizen. They don't ask everyone these questions though because it would be a waste of time 99.9% of the time.

Whether the 2 inch by 2 inch picture on the passport matches the bearer can actually be an inexact science. The photo may be ten years old, many people gain or lose massive amounts of weight in that time, someone could be using a passport of a family member of similar age, etc.

Customs/import allowances are contingent upon residency status rather than citizenship/immigration-related status.

As an unrelated side note, I never would have believed that I would be typing this as a response to one of your posts. However, when it is true it is true.

You are quite correct in your statement.

FB

The officer cannot control your responses. If you choose to not answer the officer and it appears that you are evading not providing information that the officer needs to complete the inspection the officer has to do his job.

Don't you mean examination? ;)

You lost me here. Almost by definition, "Immigration" refers to people coming in to a country. What kind of immigration "aspect" would be involved in an outbound inspection? Even if somebody is out of status, they are self-deporting.

It doesn't matter if they are self-deporting or not they are still present in the country illegally and can be arrested and formally removed from the country. This makes a big difference if they are encounter trying to re-enter the country. If they just left, self deported as you put it they still would not have a formal removal. No, formal removal the person can't be charged criminally as a re-entry after removal.

In addition, there is a section of the INA that covers do not depart orders. They are rarely used. The only time I saw them used was in the months following Sept. 11th. Then the do not depart orders were extensive. One of the ways to enforce them are outbound inspections.

Also, in the INA since 1997 are the requirements for some type of exit control. This section of the INA has never been funded so it hasn't happened yet. Over the years, several pilot programs have been attempted but none of them have had the intended results that were acceptable. You may remember years ago some airports had kiosks similar to the GE kiosks that would take your I-94 and fingerprints and record your exit. Didn’t work as well as we would have liked? Most new land border port facilities are being constructed in a way that will allow outbound inspection this is not just for customs purposes. However, with the current economic climate I don’t think you will see true outbound control for years if ever.

FB

Don't you mean examination? ;)

Yes, but I am trying to keep it as simple and non-technical as I can.

FB

Again, I appreciate your response and I understand the concept that a passport may or may not be legitimate and may or may not be the actual passport of the person presenting it. What I am struggling to understand is what sort of questions "may be necessary to confirm that the person is actually a US Citizen."

I'm having a hard time conceiving what specific questions could be asked, and which answers to them, would be more dispositive of citizenship than a valid passport with a picture that matched the individual presenting it. Could you provide a few examples?

It would be difficult to provide very specific examples here. I will try to give you an idea of the concept. If I have an individual in front of me that presents a US Passport, picture could be him or maybe not it is an older passport issued years ago. He may be an imposter. The passport is well traveled. I may ask questions concerning his past travels when and where he traveled. I am looking to see if he has a general idea of what is in his passport. If the person starts rattling of exact dates etc., then there might be a problem. I may ask about the actual process to obtain the passport to see if he knows the process, where he got it, how much it cost. etc.. I may ask the purpose of the trip depending on that answer will determine what comes next. People tend to have knowledge about the places they have been to on vacation. People that are away on business have jobs that are consistent with that travel. People can generally converse about their job easily and it is not contrived. The answers to the questions are really not the important part. It is how the individual acts while they are answering the questions. Are they nervous? Do they attempt to evade the answering the question? Which is where many of the FT'ers here find themselves at odds with the officer. It is not an exact science and it takes some time to become proficient. That is why many times it is the inexperienced officer that doesn't get it right, and may overstep.

People that are attempting to enter illegally or are being smuggled into the country are usually following a certain route. Most times they are not familiar with the details of the country that they are coming from (because it is not their home country). They more than likely spent several days in a stash house and have no idea where they were. The document was provided to them many times right before they got on the plane. They may have a rudimentary knowledge because of what they read in it but it doesn't hold up when the officer starts asking seemingly unrelated questions about that person. I promise there is a method to what the officer is doing and the questions do have a reason.

FB

Remember the part later in this post where you try to imply that the officers don't know the rules, laws, and regulations very well.

No, not really.

I can't speak for the every officer, but I can tell you that the officers are well trained. They spend a long time in the academy and even longer in post academy training. I can also tell you it appears that they know the rules, laws and regulations better that you do. That is because if you have to ask the above question you don't understand the Customs laws of the United States. Residency for customs purposes have nothing to do with your citizenship.

Yeah, I get that.

Question 7, settles the residency question. The traveler has answered the residency question. Besides having also addressed the citizenship question.

I'll try again, just for kicks:

If the answer to 7 is "U.S.A.", then question 4 may be used as evidence of a false answer to question 7. Any other purpose, for a U.S. citizen traveler?

Third time's the charm?

You can also be asked the same question both orally or in writing because that law that you think the officer doesn't understand requires you to be given a opportunity to amend your declaration.

...

So what is it that the officer represents?

Easy. The U.S. Government, and all its terrible power.

These are all really old topics. They have been tested numerous times in the courts. The court has repeatedly held that a country has the power to protect it sovereignty and its borders. The methods currently being used have also been tested numerous times in the courts. They so far have been upheld. Will this always be the case? No one knows but if the courts rule a different way than policies will change, methods change and how the officers do their job will change. I personally have seen a few changes over the years. It really doesn't matter what the officer believes or doesn't believe. It matters what the courts believe.

The officer is just following orders, after all.

That officer has much more training in the law, regulations and the constitution than you realize. It is continually ongoing. In terms of the constitution alone there is an annual refresher/update that is a minimum. Most field offices are doing more than the minimum.

Well, I never suggested there was too little training.

Since you brought up the topic of the constitution I might suggest that you go back and actually read that document from start to finish.

Can I at least skip the parts that were subsequently repealed? Please?

I believe that you would be shocked to discover that all of the authority being used today by the modern customs service comes from that document but not in the form that you believe. The Customs service (not in the form we know today) was created by the fifth act of Congress that would put it right in the beginning of the whole country. The customs service had much more authority under the laws in place in 1789 than it does today. I believe that you would be very surprised that the leeway that was legally given to the customs service to search and collect tariffs by the laws in place at the time. Those search authorities that were used then would never stand court tests today. There are many topics in that document that today because of court interpretations just don't mean the same things that those words meant back then. That is the system that we operate under in this country. The policies that are in place in any law enforcement agency not just CBP are usually crafted based upon not only the constitution but every court decision since the ratification of that document. That is why just reading the constitution does not tell the whole story you have to read everything connected to the topic. That is a daunting task for anyone and certainly beyond the expectations of the average law enforcement officer. That is law enforcement agencies employee lawyers to review their policies and procedures to keep them up to date. Even then it still takes a court to make a final determination.

Great. Why do I have to answer question 4?

...

No, it is not infrequent at all. However, frequently the individual is misinformed, incorrect, and doesn't have a legal basis to be doing what they are attempting to do. That is because many times the individual is following advice they got on an internet forum from someone they never met who usually doesn't know any more than the individual did to begin with and it happens more and more as the internet increases the amount of information available. Unfortunately, there is no filter that ensures that the information is accurate. Much more frequently, the officer is well within their legal authority. That is because the officer, if following policy, is doing procedures that have already past legal muster. Again, that is not to say mistakes are not made and officers are never incorrect.

FB

Let's focus, shall we?

I, for one, am really impressed with this Firebug4 guy. I wish he had been working at the airport I came through a few days ago, I think things would have gone a lot smoother.

I appreciate your thoughtful replies.

Here's where I think we have a disagreement. I don't think the government needs to know where I go and what I do whenever I leave the country. I don't think the officer needs to know these things in order to complete his inspection, i.e. to determine whether I am a U.S. citizen or whether I am bringing back in contraband.

More importantly, a passenger's invocation of his right not to answer shouldn't be termed "evasiveness" or construed as evidence of guilt. Officers shouldn't say "Well, since you won't answer, we're going to seize your electronic equipment."

Lastly, I don't have the experience that you do, but I would guess that bad guys don't invoke their rights not to answer and thereby call attention to themselves. Bad guys try to blend in by answering the questions like everyone else and then simply lying.

I think part of the problem is that I get the feeling that very, very few law abiding passengers simply refuse to answer for the sake of preserving personal privacy. If more passengers started doing this, perhaps the officers would stop assuming guilt whenever someone said "I'd rather not answer that."

I personally believe that disagreement is too strong of a word. I think a better term is misunderstanding. The government doesn't really care where you went or what you did while away in manner that you think it does. The government is not tracking you. The answers to those questions can be very germane to determine if you are bringing contraband, prohibited items, or are not a US citizen. Let’s say for example you are traveling to the United States from Columbia. Columbia is a source country. It is common for people that are traveling from Columbia to sometimes be carrying cocaine into the United States. Many times those people will travel from Columbia to another country before traveling to the US to conceal their presence in Columbia.

The reason for your trip to Columbia can be very important to that officer. I will get ahead of myself for a second and jump to the second to the last paragraph of your post. You state that the bad guys don't evoke their right not to answer. That is not correct the smart ones most certainly do. However, it usually is not the smart ones that are carrying the product into the United States. They get someone else to do that and they usually are not smart. You are correct in that often that person begins lying. That is the reason that the officer is asking questions. Those questions are what is being used to determine if the person is lying and again it is not necessarily the answers themselves that give the clues. It is the person’s physical bodily responses. (Please hold that thought because I am going to come back to it in a second)

Many times a law abiding person doesn't want to give us true responses for one of two reasons. One the truth is embarrassing, ie traveler is having an affair. I use this because it actually happens a lot. The officer doesn't care and doesn't even remember it after the next twenty or so passengers. All he cares about is that is explains the person unconscious nervous physical response to the question. Second reason, the person believes that what they did or are doing is illegal or against the rules. This is most often is in relation to the Immigration side of the equation. The person many times has been given bad information concerning what they are doing again many times from the internet. However, what they are truly doing is allowed and is not a problem. I have said this before in this forum. I can't count the number of times that I have had lengthy interviews with a person who was obviously not being truthful in the interview. The person finally comes clean and tells the truth. It turns out that they are allowed to do what they came to do. It is perfectly legal but some "friend" told them that "don't tell them that because they won't let you in” I see this a lot concerning people coming to visit students and romantic partners. All that it did was waste both of our time.

Now let’s talk about not answering the officer’s questions and being evasive. You state the person refusal to answer the question should not be termed evasive. However, that is exactly what it is. I am not big on using dictionary definitions in these type of discussions because dictionary definitions don't take into account context but here is the definition

e•va•sive/iˈvāsiv/
Adjective:

1.Tending to avoid commitment or self-revelation, esp. by responding only indirectly.
2.Directed toward avoidance or escape

If you are avoiding giving the officer a response you are being evasive but again this is only a small part of the whole picture. The refusal to answer the question is by no means evidence of guilt. I would like you to consider this though. When an individual is in front of the officer and decides, for whatever reason even for the legitimate reason that they don't have to respond to the question, not to respond. The person knows it is not the "norm" not to answer. The person is in front of a law enforcement officer who has the authority to search them and certain cases arrest them. What do you think happens to that person physically? Remember, I asked you to remember that the officer is looking for unconscious physical body responses. The person reacts to that stress. It usually is uncontrollable and looks exactly like someone who is caught doing something they are not supposed to be doing.

From the officer's prospective, the person is avoiding answering questions and will most likely also have the physical body responses that are indicative to someone who is hiding something. The officer doesn't know what it is the person is not telling them and the physical responses will look very similar if not exactly like someone who is hiding something. The only question is if the information that is being withheld matters to the inspection and if it indicates unlawful activity. The officer at that point is required to investigate to determine if there is unlawful activity. He will sometimes be successful one way or the other or he won't but either way it will take additional time and more than likely it will not be all that comfortable or pleasant for the individual. In the end, the officer is reacting to the responses of the individual or in this case the lack of responses

FB

Yeah, I get that.
Question 7, settles the residency question. The traveler has answered the residency question. Besides having also addressed the citizenship question.
I'll try again, just for kicks:
If the answer to 7 is "U.S.A.", then question 4 may be used as evidence of a false answer to question 7. Any other purpose, for a U.S. citizen traveler?
Third time's the charm?

Except that you don't get that. Many other people don't get it either. Neither answer is going to "be used as evidence" of a false answer. It is used to clarify in what manner the person is entering and what exemptions the person is entitled to claim. There are very many people that claim US Citizenship and also state they are a resident. For many people it is synonymous though it can be incorrect. They then go onto list a hotel as a destination. Couple of more questions later the officer can determine that the person while a US Citizen is a non-resident because the person didn't know the legal definition not because the person was trying to do something illegal. The officer, however, being the one with the legal knowledge of his job makes the determination and goes on no harm no foul.
This doesn't even begin to address the public health implications of being able to know where to locate someone quickly after an entry to the United States regardless if the person is a visitor, US citizen, resident or non-resident.
Easy. The U.S. Government, and all its terrible power.
You certainly have a right to believe that if you want to. There is not a thing that I will be able to say to you that will change your belief. However, just because you believe it doesn't make it true and it doesn’t mean that monsters exist either in the form of government employees because you don’t agree with current policies.
The officer is just following orders, after all.
No, not following orders at all. Following that document called the constitution and all the related court decisions that interpret the meaning of that document that you dragged into the discussion. Which is fine, I don't have a problem with that at all. Law enforcement agencies, Federal, State or Local, do not operate in a vacuum. If an agency's policy is incorrect or unconstitutional, a court somewhere will rule and that agencies policies will change. The law enforcement officer doesn't make the laws. However, he or she must abide by them regardless if he or she agrees with them or not. If the law enforcement officer doesn't agree with the law, he or she has the same power you do to effect that change which of course is to lobby the law makers to change the law. Neither you nor the law enforcement officer gets to break the law because they don't agree with it.

Can I at least skip the parts that were subsequently repealed? Please?/QUOTE]
Sure, if you want to but they have value too even today if purely for context to understand how we got to where we are today.

[QUOTE]Great. Why do I have to answer question 4?
See above it has been answered already in several different posts and more than three times. Just for the record, I am here on my own time. You don't get to dictate how I choose or when I choose to answer a question. While I haven't been active here lately, I can promise you if I am answering a question am either very familiar with the topic and can back up my information with real world experience and the legal citations if need be or I can get the answer. Also if I don't know the answer, I also will most certainly tell you I don't know but most often will attempt to get the answer for you.
Let's focus, shall we?
I am very focused. You just don’t agree with me. The point is many of these situations are created because the individual thinks that he or she knows the law and regs better that the officer. Most of the time, not all the time, that is just not the case. It just wastes everyone’s time and truthfully many times makes that individual look foolish. It never ceases to amaze me how often and how many people think that they are qualified to tell a Law enforcement officer (not necessarily, a CBP officer, any law enforcement officer) how to do a law enforcement officer job without the benefit of any training or real experience doing that job. These same people would never consider telling an electrician, carpenter, doctor, construction worker, you name the occupation it really doesn't matter how to go about doing their job.

FB

To everyone else in the thread, I apologize. It was not my intent to high jack or monopolize the thread.

FB

To everyone else in the thread, I apologize. It was not my intent to high jack or monopolize the thread.

FB

No apology necessary. I started the thread and resumed it with the story of my recent secondary inspection, and your contributions have been very insightful and helped me to understand a good bit about the officer's perspective.

You don't get to dictate how I choose or when I choose to answer a question. While I haven't been active here lately, I can promise you if I am answering a question am either very familiar with the topic and can back up my information with real world experience and the legal citations if need be or I can get the answer. Also if I don't know the answer, I also will most certainly tell you I don't know but most often will attempt to get the answer for you.
FB

Dear Firebug - Thank you very much for taking the time to post here. As someone who is also somewhat familiar with this subject matter(though, I think in a manner that is much more peripheral than yourself), I find your writing to be detailed, clear and balanced.

Everyone: let me share a story with you. When I was younger, I was in South America conducting USG-funded research in a country that despised the US and kicked out the DEA. As I was sitting at the gate(no lounge access then) for my flight to Miami, I was approached by airline staff saying that something was wrong with my luggage. I went down to the tarmac, and there was a squad of soldiers standing around my luggage, which was now leaking. The commander of the group cut the shrink wrapping and proceeded to inspect my luggage in detail. It turns out, one of the bottles of indigenous chocolate-liquer that I had purchased had broken. However, they went through and inspected each item carefully(ie, turning bottles upside down to see if I had stashed baggies of stuff in the bottle). When the commander came across a brown, brick-sized lump wrapped in plastic, he became very excited and turned to me to ask what it was. Naively(not understanding how it would look), I had purchased unrefined sugar cane from the area in the Andes where I was conducting my research. However, in my nervousness, I had forgotten the local term for it in spanish, and simply replied that it was sweet, and bought from a market in XYZ region. The commander turned to a soldier from that region who confirmed that it was indeed how that sugar looked, and not an attempt to smuggle cocaine. Just to be on the safe side, he did break off a tiny piece to see how it crumbled. The inspection ended on a high note, and I shook everyone's hand before getting on the plane.

On my arrival back into the US, I hadn't slept or showered for a day, and looked like it. When the agent asked me what I was doing in this country, with my brain still thinking in spanish, I replied "conducting investigations"(which is how I would normally start to describe my research in spanish) and was turfed over to secondary. The guy there took one look through my backpack, saw my notes, and sent me on my way.

Now, thinking back, it's perfectly reasonable how everything unfolded. I was young, male, unshaven, looking like I'd spent time in the field with a shrink-wrapped bag that was leaking traveling alone without much cash. If you were a customs officer, wouldn't you search me?

Quite frankly, the thing that I was most scared of was having something "planted" on me in this south american country. No doubt it would have been politically appealing for the ruling regime to have a "catch" of a young US national(heck they could probably spin my funding to make me look like a USG employee) smuggling drugs. I am very thankful that the people inspecting my bags chose not to do so, when they could have done so easily and without repercussion.

Except that you don't get that. Many other people don't get it either.

You had written:

Residency for customs purposes have nothing to do with your citizenship.

That is what I "get," and have gotten, all along; I had assumed it was understood by all. Sorry I wasn't clear. Thanks for (eventually) addressing my related question about question 4, though your attitude, frankly, leaves something to be desired.

I do agree that your responses have been informative, though.

Neither answer is going to "be used as evidence" of a false answer. It is used to clarify in what manner the person is entering and what exemptions the person is entitled to claim
There are very many people that claim US Citizenship and also state they are a resident. For many people it is synonymous though it can be incorrect. They then go onto list a hotel as a destination. Couple of more questions later the officer can determine that the person while a US Citizen is a non-resident because the person didn't know the legal definition not because the person was trying to do something illegal. The officer, however, being the one with the legal knowledge of his job makes the determination and goes on no harm no foul.
This doesn't even begin to address the public health implications of being able to know where to locate someone quickly after an entry to the United States regardless if the person is a visitor, US citizen, resident or non-resident.

OK, "used as evidence" may be a term of art. The answer to question 4 (U.S. street address) may contradict the answer to question 7, and can help the officer determine whether the answer to question 7 (the residence question) is accurate. I suppose that's a clearer way to put it. And, there are also "public health" reasons for asking question 4.

Thanks again.

I still aver that CBP is incorrect that U.S. citizen/residents "must complete" question 4. The traveler can not be required to help CBP conduct its investigation as to whether the traveler's statement of residence is truthful.

You certainly have a right to believe that if you want to. There is not a thing that I will be able to say to you that will change your belief. However, just because you believe it doesn't make it true and it doesn’t mean that monsters exist either in the form of government employees because you don’t agree with current policies.

Are you suggesting that you disagree that the CBP officer represents the U.S. Government and all its terrible power?

Would you agree if the word "terrible" were removed? How about also removing the word "all"? I really didn't expect you to disagree with that statement.

No, not following orders at all.

I don't believe it.

Following that document called the constitution and all the related court decisions that interpret the meaning of that document that you dragged into the discussion. Which is fine, I don't have a problem with that at all.

"Dragged"? After you brought up the "rules, laws and regulations" without mention of the constitution itself? Well, well, well.

Law enforcement agencies, Federal, State or Local, do not operate in a vacuum. If an agency's policy is incorrect or unconstitutional, a court somewhere will rule and that agencies policies will change. The law enforcement officer doesn't make the laws. However, he or she must abide by them regardless if he or she agrees with them or not.

But, how does that coincide with "not following orders at all" (see above)?

There is nothing necessarily wrong with just following orders, after all.

If the law enforcement officer doesn't agree with the law, he or she has the same power you do to effect that change which of course is to lobby the law makers to change the law. Neither you nor the law enforcement officer gets to break the law because they don't agree with it.

And what if "the law" contradicts the U.S. Constitution? Just for argument's sake; you don't have to answer if you don't want to.

...

See above it has been answered already in several different posts and more than three times.

Your latest post offered by far the best answer for why I have to answer question 4. Thanks again.

Just for the record, I am here on my own time. You don't get to dictate how I choose or when I choose to answer a question. While I haven't been active here lately, I can promise you if I am answering a question am either very familiar with the topic and can back up my information with real world experience and the legal citations if need be or I can get the answer. Also if I don't know the answer, I also will most certainly tell you I don't know but most often will attempt to get the answer for you.

OK then.

I am very focused. You just don’t agree with me.

No, you were losing focus. I had no disagreement with what you wrote, but characterizing the amount and quality of knowledge of non-CBP officers was unproductive, I thought.

The point is many of these situations are created because the individual thinks that he or she knows the law and regs better that the officer. Most of the time, not all the time, that is just not the case. It just wastes everyone’s time and truthfully many times makes that individual look foolish. It never ceases to amaze me how often and how many people think that they are qualified to tell a Law enforcement officer (not necessarily, a CBP officer, any law enforcement officer) how to do a law enforcement officer job without the benefit of any training or real experience doing that job. These same people would never consider telling an electrician, carpenter, doctor, construction worker, you name the occupation it really doesn't matter how to go about doing their job.

FB

Remember that citizens have a duty to take responsibility for their own rights. That responsibility cannot be assumed by a law enforcement officer. It's not just a "job"; it's a relationship. As in any human relationship, things change, constantly.

More importantly, a passenger's invocation of his right not to answer shouldn't be termed "evasiveness" or construed as evidence of guilt. Officers shouldn't say "Well, since you won't answer, we're going to seize your electronic equipment."

I think part of the problem is that I get the feeling that very, very few law abiding passengers simply refuse to answer for the sake of preserving personal privacy. If more passengers started doing this, perhaps the officers would stop assuming guilt whenever someone said "I'd rather not answer that."

^

That's also why more of us should encrypt our laptops, personal emails, etc. And generally refuse to present ID or answer government interrogations when not strictly necessary.


Now let’s talk about not answering the officer’s questions and being evasive. You state the person refusal to answer the question should not be termed evasive. However, that is exactly what it is.

...

From the officer's prospective, the person is avoiding answering questions and will most likely also have the physical body responses that are indicative to someone who is hiding something.

I'm pretty sure law enforcement (non border) is not allowed to use silence or refusal to answer as grounds for "probable cause" or even "reasonable suspicion." I know they still do in practice, but the rules at least play lip service to the 5th Amendment.

Yeah, the border is different and Constitution-free in the minds of many, but I would think something similar should still apply. And I believe it is grossly abusive and inappropriate to use threats of property confiscation, x-ray, or laxatives to extort answers out of a US Citizen. That's not about finding "unlawful" activity as there is no articulable reason to believe the electronics or body are carrying contraband; that's about power tripping, and to use the motto of the Federal Air Marshals, "dominate, intimidate, control."

To everyone else in the thread, I apologize. It was not my intent to high jack or monopolize the thread.

FB

Seems very on-topic to me. No apology needed IMO

To everyone else in the thread, I apologize. It was not my intent to high jack or monopolize the thread.

FB

No apology is necessary. I, for one, find the discussion very interesting and informative.

As many times that I have seen people be evasive for the reasons above, I have seen people be evasive for maybe not innocent reasons but reasons the officer really doesn't care about.

For the sake of full disclosure, I should say that my decision to try to exercise my right to remain silent about the reasons for this particular trip wasn't just a coincidence or an exercise of constitutional rights for purely civil libertarian reasons. As FB points out, there was a minor matter (not an affair) that I didn't feel like discussing with CBP that they probably wouldn't have cared about anyway. They probably assumed that there was a major matter at stake, and in retrospect I brought a fair bit of the grief upon myself.

I do agree though with studentff that if more people said "I'm refusing to answer your questions" then it would be easier for the civil libertarians or the near-innocent to refuse to answer without generating suspicion.

It would be difficult to provide very specific examples here. I will try to give you an idea of the concept. If I have an individual in front of me that presents a US Passport, picture could be him or maybe not it is an older passport issued years ago. He may be an imposter. The passport is well traveled. I may ask questions concerning his past travels when and where he traveled.

...(much discussion omitted)

The answers to the questions are really not the important part. It is how the individual acts while they are answering the questions. Are they nervous? Do they attempt to evade the answering the question? Which is where many of the FT'ers here find themselves at odds with the officer. It is not an exact science and it takes some time to become proficient. That is why many times it is the inexperienced officer that doesn't get it right, and may overstep.
. . .




and

That depends on the manner that you answer the questions and it doesn't really matter what the questions is. The officer is trying to gauge your response and mannerisms. If you don't give any response at all, it becomes very difficult to gauge your response and mannerisms. If you answer that you were away on vacation and it is consistent with the rest of the information that goes with the inspection the officer is comfortable and is satisfied with your citizenship you are quite correct the inspection process can be quite rapid.

If you state I'd rather not say why I was away, you can begin to appear evasive. Many times people are evasive because they are hiding contraband, attempting illegal entry, assisting someone else smuggling or attempting illegal entry.

...(much discussion omitted)

When it appears that you are being evasive, it is not taking two hours to determine you are a US Citizen. It is taking time to try to determine why you are being evasive to begin with. Sometimes the officer is successful sometimes he is not. However, the officer is required to attempt to determine the reason.


That helps quite a bit. Thank you for the response.

I readily accept that there are many reasons people may choose to be evasive (your term) or non-responsive (my term) during questioning by a CBP official. My list includes some of the reasons that you cite. It is non-exhaustive but it includes:


the person is hiding something illegal
the person is embarrassed about something that was not illegal
the person is tired and cranky after a long flight
the person is nervous about missing his connecting flight
the person is a jerk
the person is jealous of his privacy
the person is suspicious of government
the person is concerned about identity theft (when questions concern personal details)
the person believes the answers are none of the agent's business
the person believes the answers are none of the government's business



Any of the above may lead to the person being questioned appearing to be stressed. Only the first has anything to do with enforcing customs or immigration laws.

What is troubling is that, from the accounts I've read, item #1 is the default assumption and if the CBP agent is unable to come up with any supporting evidence to confirm nefarious intent the next step is to bully, intimidate, detain and inconvenience the person. It seems like it is "do it the way we want or we'll teach you a lesson."

Granted, such action may be extremely rare or it might be common. I have no way to know. However; it is troubling to think that one must "cooperate"
with government agents just to enter one's own country, especially when "cooperation" means answering personal questions that touch on areas that many people feel are private. I would hope that CBP agents would have some appreciation of the reality that not everyone who feels uncomfortable or reluctant to answer a private question is a likely criminal.

If part of the goal is truly to process entrants as quickly and expeditiously as possible an effort to avoid a confrontational approach when a person is "evasive" or "non-responsive" would be a big plus. Consider the following exchange:

agent: "What's your home address?"
person: "I'd rather not say."
agent: "You better tell me or we'll be here for a long time!"

And compare it to this:

agent: "What's your home address?"
person: "I'd rather not say."
agent: "Why not?"
person: "If I tell you that, then you've got my credit card billing address. I've already had my account hacked twice. No offense to you, but I don't want to go through that again."
agent: "Okay then, can you tell me where you went to high school?"

If it is true that "it doesn't really matter what the questions is" because "(t)he officer is trying to gauge your response and mannerisms," then I would submit the latter conversation is not only better from the person's point of view but it also helps the agent more quickly reach the avowed goal of determining if further investigation is required. I wonder if the agents or the agency would agree.

I do agree though with studentff that if more people said "I'm refusing to answer your questions" then it would be easier for the civil libertarians or the near-innocent to refuse to answer without generating suspicion.
Then, entering the USA would be like entering Germany, where federal policemen stamp your passport and send you on your way without saying a word to you :) Would be great.

On another note, FB stated many times that one of the responsibilities of a CBP agent is to determine that a US passport holder did not obtain the passport via fraud. Basically, it is like trying to confirm in a span of few minutes (primary inspection time) that the US Department of State's decision to issue the passport to this particular individual was legitimate. I disagree with this practice. The process of obtaining a passport is very similar in many countries around the world, but only few countries make their border agents attempt to re-verify the citizenship of a person upon each and every entry into a country. I cannot really understand why the US government decided to do it this way.

Any of the above may lead to the person being questioned appearing to be stressed.


Stipulating temporary that looking for physical responses or micro-expressions actually works, I wonder if any of the people trained in this (CBP, TSA, & LEOs) are able to distinguish between life-related stress (on the way to a funeral, going through a divorce), the stress of trying to hide something (which is what they claim to be looking for), and just plain anger/hatred.

Using TSA as an example: When I go through, I am not trying to sneak through WEI. Or do harm to the airport or aircraft. But I hold deeply-held beliefs that the TSA is destructive to our freedoms and that the employees who are "just following orders/policy" are a major enabler of the problem, and for lack of a better term, the enemy. When I get to the TDC, I am thinking about that anger. I am feeling personal hatred directed at them and their colleagues. I am also anxious about having personal property confiscated (e.g., custom electronics) and about being forced into a private room and about missing my flight due to a power trip even if I am two hours early.

How does that manifest to someone trained to detect physical responses?

The officers are interested in processing individuals as quickly as possible but also as correctly as possible. Almost every question that is asked is to that end. I went back and re-read this thread. It re-enforced what I have come to believe for quite some time now. Just as the average traveler, and I am including frequent travelers as well, are sometimes incredulous and insulted by the questions asked, the CBP officer is just as incredulous and yes sometimes insulted as why that the traveler is unwilling to respond to the question.

FB

Just want to share one of my experiences entering JFK..

CBP Officer: What is the purpose of your visit?
Me: Coming to spend some time with my girlfriend.
CBP Officer: Did she travel with you?
Me: Yes, she went in the US citizens/resident queue.
CBP Officer: How long have you been together?
Me: <x> months.
CBP Officer: Where did you meet?
Me: <city>
CBP Officer: What were you doing in <city>?
Me: studying
CBP Officer: For how long?
Me: <x> years.
CBP Officer: What were you studying?
Me: <masters program>
CBP Officer: What do you do for work?
Me: <job title>
CBP Officer hands me passport, I say "Thank you" and leave


Now.. I understand this whole 'the officers want to get their work done fast and in the best way possible' argument, but was all this conversation necessary? This had not been the first time I had been in the states.

Being an EU citizen, I will most likely answer whatever questions they ask and play the game, since I don't like being stuck in queue, nor being denied admission.

However, I don't understand how US citizens put up with this kind of treatment. If the CBP office isn't in a good mood, you need to defend your right to re-enter your own country (let's not forget US citizens pay income taxes even when living abroad). To avoid this, you can 'choose' to enroll in some sort of trusted program like GlobalEntry (and pay a fee) in order to become a trusted entrant to the country.

In Europe, you have terminals where you scan your electronic password, smile at the camera to get your picture taken and then enter the country.

Why would anyone prefer an 'inspection'/'examination'/'interrogation' upon entering your own country, rather than a trust-based system (like the EU), is beyond me.

Just want to share one of my experiences entering JFK..

CBP Officer: What is the purpose of your visit?
Me: Coming to spend some time with my girlfriend.
CBP Officer: Did she travel with you?
Me: Yes, she went in the US citizens/resident queue.
CBP Officer: How long have you been together?
Me: <x> months.
CBP Officer: Where did you meet?
Me: <city>
CBP Officer: What were you doing in <city>?
Me: studying
CBP Officer: For how long?
Me: <x> years.
CBP Officer: What were you studying?
Me: <masters program>
CBP Officer: What do you do for work?
Me: <job title>
CBP Officer hands me passport, I say "Thank you" and leave


Now.. I understand this whole 'the officers want to get their work done fast and in the best way possible' argument, but was all this conversation necessary? This had not been the first time I had been in the states.


Judging solely by the line of questioning and when the CBP officer sent you on your way, it sounds as though he was trying to determine if you were intent on leaving the country or over-staying.

In your case, it appears once he heard that you had a Masters and were gainfully employed, apparently at a job where it's very likely you'll return to that job (and likely decided you weren't lying), he judged you to be someone that was just visiting and not intent on staying.

As a US citizen, I've never been asked anything that extensive entering the US. Usually questions about where I went, how long I was away, and sometimes why I was there.

CBP Officer: What do you do for work?
Me: <job title>
CBP Officer hands me passport, I say "Thank you" and leave



Interesting. I'm often asked at the primary stop "what do you do for work?" and when I say "lawyer" they usually immediately let me pass. I don't think they are afraid of furhter questioning lawyers, I just think that if you have a professional job, it means that: (a) you have money to pay for your travels, (b) you're very unlikely to be a drug smuggler, because drug smugglers are normally under financial pressure and have criminal friends, (c) you've probably had to pass background checks and professional license checks and therefore are more likely to be a law abiding person, and (d) you're less likely to be trying to make a buck bringing in a suitcase full of black market Viagra.


I always travel alone, frequently returning from oddball countries, so I think they just have to quickly decide between (a) drug smuggler, or (b) well off guy who likes to travel. So saying "lawyer" fits the "picture" of "b" and usually ends the inspection, although sometimes they ask what kind of lawyer, where did I go to law school, then they send me through.

Then, entering the USA would be like entering Germany, where federal policemen stamp your passport and send you on your way without saying a word to you :) Would be great.

On another note, FB stated many times that one of the responsibilities of a CBP agent is to determine that a US passport holder did not obtain the passport via fraud. Basically, it is like trying to confirm in a span of few minutes (primary inspection time) that the US Department of State's decision to issue the passport to this particular individual was legitimate. I disagree with this practice. The process of obtaining a passport is very similar in many countries around the world, but only few countries make their border agents attempt to re-verify the citizenship of a person upon each and every entry into a country. I cannot really understand why the US government decided to do it this way.

I was thinking the same thing. In a lot of other countries all they do is swipe your passport to let you in. In the US however, apparently questions are also needed and routine rather than the exception. Are there guidelines on what questions they can ask - I presume there are.

If you state I'd rather not say why I was away, you can begin to appear evasive.
To me, the key word there is "can". And I agree with you. But there's a problem here which is that the 5th Amendment right to not say anything is absolute and there's no legal theory that weakens that at the border (unlike the 4th Amendment). And part of it being absolute is that invoking it cannot be used to establish cause to escalate the encounter: a policeman can't say "refusing to tell me what you're doing here is suspicious and I now have cause to search you".

What you're doing is saying "it's not that the invocation of the 5th is causing me to proceed further, but that the passenger is being 'evasive'". But isn't that a "difference without a distinction"? How can you square futher examination against the fundamental constitutional reality that if invoking the 5th results in suspicion, the 5th Amendment no longer has any practical meaning?

Or are you saying that you, as an officer, will treat somebody saying "I invoke my 5th Amendment rights not to answer that question" differently than somebody who simply doesn't answer or refuses to answer and doesn't say why? (Indeed, the Supreme Court recently held that somebody must explicitly invoke it.)

It doesn't matter if they are self-deporting or not they are still present in the country illegally and can be arrested and formally removed from the country. This makes a big difference if they are encounter trying to re-enter the country.
Yes, I understand that (and should have made it clear that I did; sorry). My point was why it was worth the trouble to accomplish only that? After all, if you're trying to find people who are out of status, wouldn't finding them in the NYC subway system be more productive than on an outgoing aircraft at JFK? The former are not self-deporting.

From the officer's prospective, the person is avoiding answering questions and will most likely also have the physical body responses that are indicative to someone who is hiding something. The officer doesn't know what it is the person is not telling them and the physical responses will look very similar if not exactly like someone who is hiding something. The only question is if the information that is being withheld matters to the inspection and if it indicates unlawful activity. The officer at that point is required to investigate to determine if there is unlawful activity.
But doesn't this provide the same Constitutional issue that I mentioned in a previous post? If those physical responses are produced by a protected activity, then they also can't be used as a basis of suspicion. Otherwise, what stops a policeman in the street from doing the same thing, saying "I'm not allowed to use your refusal to answer me as probable cause, so instead I'll use the fact that you're nervous when you refuse to answer as that cause"? Surely, you acknowlege that such behavior by a street cop would be a violation. Then why isn't it when you do it?

Judging solely by the line of questioning and when the CBP officer sent you on your way, it sounds as though he was trying to determine if you were intent on leaving the country or over-staying.
I agree. As has been discussed here numerous times, people coming to see a romantic partner have a significant risk of an overstay and the officer wants some assurance that the person has ties to their home country. There's also concern about whether the relationship is legitimate in the first place.

I see this even with visiting friends. I've been visiting some friends in Toronto recently. I now have NEXUS (though that's a long story), but before that, if my first answer when asked what I'm doing in Canada is "I'm visiting a friend", I'd get asked how I knew the friend and so on. Now I say "I'm attending a party " or "hanging out with some friends" (note the plural). Much fewer questions after that and all are truthful answers.

On the other hand, FB's story is important to keep in mind. People here (including me) have advised folks not to "lead" with saying they're visiting a partner. But not volunteering it is not the same as hiding it. The latter, as FB points out, can lead to a number of people wasting significant time.

Then, entering the USA would be like entering Germany, where federal policemen stamp your passport and send you on your way without saying a word to you :) Would be great.

This is not my experience in Germany. As a US citizen, I almost always get asked questions when I enter Germany or Switzerland, especially with regard to whether I live in DE.

This is not my experience in Germany. As a US citizen, I almost always get asked questions when I enter Germany or Switzerland, especially with regard to whether I live in DE.

I think this thread is mainly focusing on being questioned when returning to your home country. A foreigner can expect to be questioned when entering a country although as I understand from this thread people EU citizens do not get quested when travelling within an EU country.

I have legal residence in an EU country (US citizen). Whenever I enter, mostly Germany, I'm never questioned. It's mostly a quick glance at my passport and card, once in a blue moon the p/p is quickly scanned, and quite often it's.....'Welcome home.'

Entering the US I'm treated as if I'm a refugee from a rat-infested, war-torn, terrorist-listed country.

Jeeeze.....

To me, the key word there is "can". And I agree with you. But there's a problem here which is that the 5th Amendment right to not say anything is absolute and there's no legal theory that weakens that at the border (unlike the 4th Amendment). And part of it being absolute is that invoking it cannot be used to establish cause to escalate the encounter: a policeman can't say "refusing to tell me what you're doing here is suspicious and I now have cause to search you".

What you're doing is saying "it's not that the invocation of the 5th is causing me to proceed further, but that the passenger is being 'evasive'". But isn't that a "difference without a distinction"? How can you square futher examination against the fundamental constitutional reality that if invoking the 5th results in suspicion, the 5th Amendment no longer has any practical meaning?

Or are you saying that you, as an officer, will treat somebody saying "I invoke my 5th Amendment rights not to answer that question" differently than somebody who simply doesn't answer or refuses to answer and doesn't say why? (Indeed, the Supreme Court recently held that somebody must explicitly invoke it.)

Would you agree that a U.S. citizen/resident who answers Form 6059B question 7 (country of residence) with "U.S.A." need not answer question 4 (U.S. street address), despite the "must complete" language?

Would you agree that a U.S. citizen/resident who answers Form 6059B question 7 (country of residence) with "U.S.A." need not answer question 4 (U.S. street address), despite the "must complete" language?
Not necessarily. The 5th Amendment distinguishes between evidentiary and testimentary statements and only protects the latter. It's not completely clear to me which that question is. Remember, there are numerous instances where a US citizen is compelled to answer factual (evidentiary) questions, for example on a tax return. Do you believe that a US resident is not required to fill out their address on their tax return?

But doesn't this provide the same Constitutional issue that I mentioned in a previous post? If those physical responses are produced by a protected activity, then they also can't be used as a basis of suspicion. Otherwise, what stops a policeman in the street from doing the same thing, saying "I'm not allowed to use your refusal to answer me as probable cause, so instead I'll use the fact that you're nervous when you refuse to answer as that cause"? Surely, you acknowlege that such behavior by a street cop would be a violation. Then why isn't it when you do it?

CBP is tasked with determining several things about you, including whether you are a US citizen, whether you are bringing in any prohibited items, whether you have paid appropriate customs duties, etc. They do not need probable cause (or even reasonable suspicion) in order to look into these things. For example, a CBP officer does not need probable cause that you are smuggling something in order to open your bag. Therefore, whether your refusal to answer or your nervousness can be used as probable cause is irrelevant. Even if it can't constitutionally be used, they have the authority to open your bag, just as they would have if they hadn't asked you anything in the first place.

A street cop, on the other hand, needs probable cause to search you, and therefore cannot search you on the basis of your refusal to answer questions.

This is not my experience in Germany. As a US citizen, I almost always get asked questions when I enter Germany or Switzerland, especially with regard to whether I live in DE.
I mostly fly to FRA and MUC, and so far they did not say a word to me. The most I could get was "Hallo" and only when I greeted them first.

On another note, I got fewer questions from CBP when I was entering USA on a green card than on the US passport. Surprisingly, same goes for entering Canada as a visitor.

Not necessarily. The 5th Amendment distinguishes between evidentiary and testimentary statements and only protects the latter. It's not completely clear to me which that question is. Remember, there are numerous instances where a US citizen is compelled to answer factual (evidentiary) questions, for example on a tax return. Do you believe that a US resident is not required to fill out their address on their tax return?

Those U.S. residents who file a tax return, sure, their address is "required." That's different, right? Deciding to file a tax return leads to certain necessary consequences. Returning to one's own country should not have the same consequences.

You suggest that a U.S. citizen/resident who answers Form 6059B question 7 (country of residence) with "U.S.A." might be required or "compelled" to answer question 4 (U.S. street address).

If so, what sort of punishment could be imposed if question 4 was left blank? What would you suggest could be the maximum penalty under law for refusing to answer question 4, should the Congress and DHS/CBP see fit to impose it?

Just weighing in about providing an address on entry . . . .

Everyone seems focused on the idea that providing an adress is sonehow solely related to proving citizenship/residency. Bear in mind, as FB pointed out, CPB is tasked with enforcing the regulations of nearly two dozen agencies which have various interests in your exit/entry.

For example, you are re-entering the country after a vacation during which you were unwittingly and unknowingly exposed to an infectious disease (oh, say multi-drug-resistant TB). You can be sure CDC or a state or local health department acting in concert with CDC, is probably going to want to interact with you as soon as they find out about the possibility. Does such a thing happen often? No. Is there a crucial and overriding public interest on the rare occasion such a thing does happen? Absolutely.

While few are more staunch supporters of privacy and constitutional limits than I, not every single act by a government official has a nefarious motive.

~~ Irish

On the topic of exit inspections, I have seen them.

1. ICE checkpoint in Laredo, Texas, they were asking all the drivers if they had more than 10k, guns or ammo (regardless of the license plates). We were driving a MX-plated car and the guy asked if anyone in the car spoke English, I answered yes and he asked where were we coming from and how long we were there (and of course, if we had cash/guns/ammo) and he let us go, however, they did send some cars to secondary (I believe secondary had one of those truck-mounted X-ray units). I think they were also randomly tapping on the outside of the car.

2. CBP doing passport checks and random bag searches while boarding an IAH-PTY back in 08, we were only asked if we had more than 10k each (it was me and my dad) and allowed to board, but I did witness an Asian guy in a suit getting his briefcase checked, and there was a lot of cash in that briefcase.

CBP is tasked with determining several things about you, including whether you are a US citizen, whether you are bringing in any prohibited items, whether you have paid appropriate customs duties, etc. They do not need probable cause (or even reasonable suspicion) in order to look into these things. For example, a CBP officer does not need probable cause that you are smuggling something in order to open your bag. Therefore, whether your refusal to answer or your nervousness can be used as probable cause is irrelevant. Even if it can't constitutionally be used, they have the authority to open your bag, just as they would have if they hadn't asked you anything in the first place.

A street cop, on the other hand, needs probable cause to search you, and therefore cannot search you on the basis of your refusal to answer questions.
Yes, but I was using the street cop as an analogy, not saying that CBP needs to have reasonable suspicion. The point is that if, in his head, a CBP officer would not have gone into a bag or asked another question but for the invocation of the 5th Amendment, a constitutional violation exist, whether or not there might be some other hypothetical reason to do so.

Those U.S. residents who file a tax return, sure, their address is "required." That's different, right? Deciding to file a tax return leads to certain necessary consequences. Returning to one's own country should not have the same consequences.
I don't understand your point. Far more people file tax returns than leave the country. Requiring an address on a tax return affects far more people.

Yes, but I was using the street cop as an analogy, not saying that CBP needs to have reasonable suspicion. The point is that if, in his head, a CBP officer would not have gone into a bag or asked another question but for the invocation of the 5th Amendment, a constitutional violation exist, whether or not there might be some other hypothetical reason to do so.

I don't follow your reasoning here. If there is another valid reason ("hypothetical" or otherwise) to open the bag, then they have the authority to open the bag. Due to long lines, they don't normally open every bag. The 5th amendment says that your refusal to answer questions cannot be interpreted as an admission of guilt, but it does not say that it cannot be used as a criteria for an administrative search that was already legal to begin with.

Let me give a parallel example. Say the police set up a breathalyzer checkpoint on the street (assume it's legal in your state without a warrant). At first they breathalyze everyone, but then, due to long lines, they ask each driver if they have been drinking and only test those who say yes or refuse to answer. Would you say that is also a violation of the fifth amendment?

Say the police set up a breathalyzer checkpoint on the street (assume it's legal in your state without a warrant). At first they breathalyze everyone, but then, due to long lines, they ask each driver if they have been drinking and only test those who say yes or refuse to answer. Would you say that is also a violation of the fifth amendment?

Undoubtedly.

I don't follow your reasoning here. If there is another valid reason ("hypothetical" or otherwise) to open the bag, then they have the authority to open the bag. Due to long lines, they don't normally open every bag
Right, but let's suppose they choose to open the bag of every black person. Do you claim that's permissible?

Let me give a parallel example. Say the police set up a breathalyzer checkpoint on the street (assume it's legal in your state without a warrant). At first they breathalyze everyone, but then, due to long lines, they ask each driver if they have been drinking and only test those who say yes or refuse to answer. Would you say that is also a violation of the fifth amendment?
Yes, certainly.

Right, but let's suppose they choose to open the bag of every black person. Do you claim that's permissible?

That falls under the 14th amendment equal protection clause. This clause protects certain classes of people. Blacks, women, Catholics, the disabled, etc. are suspect classes that are protected under this clause. "People who refuse to answer questions" are not a suspect class entitled to equal protection under the 14th amendment (or its federal counterpart, I can't remember what it is right now).

I am not ignoring the thread. However, it takes me some time to respond to everything if I want to be accurate. Please be patient.

FB

On another note, I got fewer questions from CBP when I was entering USA on a green card than on the US passport. Surprisingly, same goes for entering Canada as a visitor.

Same for me too - at least on 2 out of the 4 occasions or so travelling as a US citizen I've got more questions than all the years traveled as an H1-B and Green Card holder. For Canada I get less questions as a US citizen - when I used to travel as a UK citizen to Canada I used to get more questions - ie how come I've living in the US, what am I doing here etc. Now the entry process is very quick to Canada.

Certainly the questioning on entry back to the US has taken me by surprise.

Just weighing in about providing an address on entry . . . .

Everyone seems focused on the idea that providing an adress is sonehow solely related to proving citizenship/residency. Bear in mind, as FB pointed out, CPB is tasked with enforcing the regulations of nearly two dozen agencies which have various interests in your exit/entry.

For example, you are re-entering the country after a vacation during which you were unwittingly and unknowingly exposed to an infectious disease (oh, say multi-drug-resistant TB). You can be sure CDC or a state or local health department acting in concert with CDC, is probably going to want to interact with you as soon as they find out about the possibility. Does such a thing happen often? No. Is there a crucial and overriding public interest on the rare occasion such a thing does happen? Absolutely.

While few are more staunch supporters of privacy and constitutional limits than I, not every single act by a government official has a nefarious motive.

~~ Irish

I don't feel like revealing my U.S. street address. Should I be punished?

I don't follow your reasoning here. If there is another valid reason ("hypothetical" or otherwise) to open the bag, then they have the authority to open the bag. Due to long lines, they don't normally open every bag. The 5th amendment says that your refusal to answer questions cannot be interpreted as an admission of guilt, but it does not say that it cannot be used as a criteria for an administrative search that was already legal to begin with.

RichardKenner has been asking some excellent questions. To your point, which like Firebug's is limited to "CBP can do X because the courts allow it...yada yada authorize it" etc. etc, frames the issue in too narrow a fashion--we can do X so we do X.

The bigger question needs to be asked, How can CBP conduct its operations so as to be non-threatening to the US citizens, the overwhelming majority of which are not criminals nor threats? Why should a US citizen be treated far better in most foreign countries than in his own? Why should a US citizen feel safer going through a foreign customs checkpoint than in his own country? You can see it in the body language of the travelers and it is simply absurd that this is the case. This is what we should be trying to fix. Instead of fixing the problem, we get a defense of the status quo by repeatedly claiming that CBP has the right to force feed you laxatives and strip search you, and take your electronics away for g-d knows how long. Travelers are indeed threatened by this and this need not be.

The quality of customs/CBP agents has deteriorated since the huge hiring push in 2005 when large numbers of agents were not background checked or vetted up to previous standards. So coupled with CBP's inflated sense of their mission, their agents can be heavy handed indeed. The threat they hold over our heads is never quite veiled, is it?

There is no real reason US citizens cannot be treated in their own country as respectfully as Europeans in their own Schengen. And to repeatedly claim we lose our rights at the border means the CBP has lost its mission. The tail is wagging the dog here. To protect us all, CBP must abuse us when we travel?

What is the best way for an average citizen to receive information from CBP as to whether they have a right to remain silent when questioned at ports of entry, and what treatment or consequences a citizen should expect will follow if he exercises his right to remain silent?

Is there an address or office where someone can write and get a response from a live person?

What is the best way for an average citizen to receive information from CBP as to whether they have a right to remain silent when questioned at ports of entry, and what treatment or consequences a citizen should expect will follow if he exercises his right to remain silent?

Is there an address or office where someone can write and get a response from a live person?

You could always hire a lawyer and ask. I doubt the CBP would answer such questions.

Based on experiences reported here:
1. you do have the right to remain silent
2. you can expect a thorough search of your person and belongings and a significant delay

That falls under the 14th amendment equal protection clause. This clause protects certain classes of people. Blacks, women, Catholics, the disabled, etc. are suspect classes that are protected under this clause. "People who refuse to answer questions" are not a suspect class entitled to equal protection under the 14th amendment (or its federal counterpart, I can't remember what it is right now).
No, but they are entitled to protection under the 5th Amendment. My point is that just because the government can do something doesn't mean that it can choose whether or not to do that thing for an impermissible reason, whether the amendment being violated is the 5th or 14th.

I don't feel like revealing my U.S. street address. Should I be punished?

I didn't say that, and that wasn't the point. The point was, CPB is not only administering their own regulations. They're also tasked to administer the regulations of a plethora of other agencies.

If the only purpose in obtaining personal data is to determine whether you're entitled to entry as a citizen, then your address seems pretty irrelevant to me; one needn't be a citizen to own property in the US and one needn't own property to be a citizen. So, I don't see any point to that.

As to whether you want to give up your information to the public health services .... that's a whole 'nother discussion. ;)


~~ Irish

I didn't say that, and that wasn't the point. The point was, CPB is not only administering their own regulations. They're also tasked to administer the regulations of a plethora of other agencies.

If the only purpose in obtaining personal data is to determine whether you're entitled to entry as a citizen, then your address seems pretty irrelevant to me; one needn't be a citizen to own property in the US and one needn't own property to be a citizen. So, I don't see any point to that.

As to whether you want to give up your information to the public health services .... that's a whole 'nother discussion. ;)


~~ Irish

A CITIZEN crosssing the border into the US must provide a local address, unless participating in the Global Entry program.

A NON-CITIZEN (Dutch, Mexican or Canadian) crosssing the border into the US must provide a local address, unless participating in the Global Entry program.

I guess that throws out the idea that this information is actually required or even used!

"Oh, an academic conference? Which one?"

I make it about six words into describing something having to do with multilateral policy and BAM there's the stamp and "have a nice day." :D

I guess CBP folks don't moonlight in that kind of field...

No, but they are entitled to protection under the 5th Amendment. My point is that just because the government can do something doesn't mean that it can choose whether or not to do that thing for an impermissible reason, whether the amendment being violated is the 5th or 14th.

The 5th and 14th amendments are completely different. The 14th (equal protection clause) protects groups of people, based on certain characteristics. For example, you cannot treat black people differently. The 5th (right to remain silent) says that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself in a criminal case. If you are, your answers cannot be used in court. Conceivably, if a CBP interrogation led to a criminal trial, the answers could not be introduced into court. However, until then there is no constitutional violation.

Conceivably, if a CBP interrogation led to a criminal trial, the answers could not be introduced into court. However, until then there is no constitutional violation.

CBP interrogations of passengers have lead to criminal prosecution trials, and passengers answers used in the trials.

Surely the big giveaway in this whole debate is that the agency the officers work for is Customs & Border Protection. While the information they ask might not be useful to deny a citizen entry (which is impossible), it is essential to decide whether you and your belongings need further searching to make sure you are not carrying anything you should including drugs, dutiable products, quarantine risk material, weapons, etc.

Sure, you may not have to answer but it is unreasonable not to given that while you have a free right to cross the border, your goods and property don't.

This has been an interesting thread. 2 days ago I entered the US through a quiet border post in eastern Montana. I was driving down from Alaska where I am resident to visit family on the east coast. The CBP officer began to question me about many things that I felt extended beyond reason. I have been doing contracting in Afghanistan and Iraq and so my passport has stamps from these countries (along with many non- conflict countries). He asked me at the beginning what I was doing over there. I told him. He asked again, and then for more detail. I was compliant and friendly. He then asked me what my current job was, where I was going in the lower 48, how long I was staying, where I was staying that night, what I was going to be doing while I was there, twice where I lived in AK, and then again at the end what I was doing previously overseas.

I remained friendly and answered all his questions. Please note that when I returned from Afghanistan one month ago I had already cleared immigration from that trip. My current trip (transiting through Canada to go from my state to another state) was irrelevant to what I had been doing for work overseas.

I am a US citizen going to the US. I am clean cut, well spoken, and in my early 40's. If they are into profiling I do not fit the bill.

I'm sorry, but I felt this was completely inappropriate questioning. I have experienced what I felt was too much questioning at our airport entries before (although only once became snippy as the guy was a real D Bag), but never to this level.

At this point I am so sick of CBP that in the future i will refuse to answer questions that are not relevant to establishing my citizenship or residency. They shoot themselves in the foot and are their own worst enemy, making law abiding citizens feel like enemies. They clearly are very limited in their abilities to use their brains and apply logic and reason to their job duties. And certainly have received no training on how to be respectful to the citizens whose tax dollars pay their dad gum salaries.

The unfortunate thing is that we citizens have no recourse. If we speak out, they will just attempt to cause us inconvenience, as many here have experienced. It's disgusting really.

Sorry for the rant, but googling the legal limitations of CBP led me to this site, and at least it's comforting to see I'm not the only one picked on at the borders of my own country!

I'll be honest, I like to watch the wheels turn in their head when I answer their questions.

Recent experience:

Immigration officer: Where were you before coming here?

Me: Since I left the U.S.? Ummm, Canada, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Scotland, England, Czech Republic, France, Morocco, and Kazakhstan.

Immigration officer: *raises eyebrow at mention of Kazakhstan* flips through passport and finds my Germany work/resident visa What kind of work do you do?

Me: I tell him what I do

Immigration officer: And you can't do that here?

Me: Nope.

Immigration officer: So was Kazakhstan for work?

Me: No. Vacation. I notice the officer's eyebrows move into a puzzled look. He then flips through the passport again and finds my Kazah visa.

Immigration officer: How long were you there?

Me: Two weeks.

Immigration officer: Where did you go?

Me: Almaty, Aralsk, Aral Sea, Semey, Semi Test Site, Atomic Lake, Astana.

Immigration Officer: That puzzled look again. You didn't bring anything radioactive back, did you?

Me: Well, I wore these shoes to Atomic Lake and the Semi Test Site but I'm pretty sure they're fine.

Immigration Officer: <pause> OK. Have a nice visit.


And he didn't even make me go through customs. Good thing too. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y187/sparkchaser1998/smileys/1shifty.gif

The 5th (right to remain silent) says that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself in a criminal case. If you are, your answers cannot be used in court. Conceivably, if a CBP interrogation led to a criminal trial, the answers could not be introduced into court. However, until then there is no constitutional violation.
The courts don't agree with your interpretation of the 5th. They've held that a person cannot be compelled to give testamentary information to any government actor unless they are assured that the information cannot be used in court (e.g., a grant of immunity).

The courts don't agree with your interpretation of the 5th. They've held that a person cannot be compelled to give testamentary information to any government actor unless they are assured that the information cannot be used in court (e.g., a grant of immunity).

That is true, but if the government violates this rule, your only remedy is to have the evidence withheld from your trial. For example, a police officer cannot compel you to answer questions without a grant of immunity, but should he inadvertently (or even intentionally) do so, all you can really do is make sure the jury does not hear your answers.

That is true, but if the government violates this rule, your only remedy is to have the evidence withheld from your trial. For example, a police officer cannot compel you to answer questions without a grant of immunity, but should he inadvertently (or even intentionally) do so, all you can really do is make sure the jury does not hear your answers.
No, that's false. If you're in a position where the government is compelling you to answer questions, you can seek an injunction (or somebody can do so on your behalf) to prevent the government from continuing to do so. And then you have Bivens Actions where you can sue the Federal employee.

We had a participant of this forum who was an attorney and ran into a situation where he refused to answer a question asked by CBP (in that case because it was privileged, but the same rule applies) and they were threatening to not permit him into the country (this was pre-clearance in Canada). The attorney was in the process of getting his office to seek an injunction when CBP changed their mind about the requirement to answer.

A CITIZEN crosssing the border into the US must provide a local address, unless participating in the Global Entry program.

A NON-CITIZEN (Dutch, Mexican or Canadian) crosssing the border into the US must provide a local address, unless participating in the Global Entry program.

I guess that throws out the idea that this information is actually required or even used!

Why must a US citizen provide a local address? Just because the CBP form says so, at question 4?

Question 7 already provides the information about residence.

As for public health reasons, what is the consequence if I decline to cooperate? Some sort of quarantine period? And, assuming I could be held for a reasonable quarantine period, could I be held even longer than that, as a punishment?

No, that's false. If you're in a position where the government is compelling you to answer questions, you can seek an injunction (or somebody can do so on your behalf) to prevent the government from continuing to do so.

In theory that option is available, but it really isn't practical to "seek an injunction" from a judge while you are standing in front of the podium being questioned by a CBP officer. The questioning would probably be over long before a judge gets around to hearing your claim.

And then you have Bivens Actions where you can sue the Federal employee.

I hadn't heard of that... it looks like an interesting option, but you would be suing the CBP officers themselves, not the government, and you would have to prove that they acted outside the scope of their official duties. As long as they were acting within their duties, they would have official immunity and you would have to sue the government under FTCA instead.

We had a participant of this forum who was an attorney and ran into a situation where he refused to answer a question asked by CBP (in that case because it was privileged, but the same rule applies) and they were threatening to not permit him into the country (this was pre-clearance in Canada). The attorney was in the process of getting his office to seek an injunction when CBP changed their mind about the requirement to answer.

That makes sense, since someone who runs a law office and is prepared to sue the government is obviously not a terrorist.

I would be interested in reading this report. Can you provide a link?

That makes sense, since someone who runs a law office and is prepared to sue the government is obviously not a terrorist.

There have been lawyers who were considered terrorists.

I would be interested in reading this report. Can you provide a link?

I think that was a reference to PTravel's experience.

Why must a US citizen provide a local address? Just because the CBP form says so, at question 4?

Because if they don't, they'll be sent to secondary for a couple hours to cool their jets?

He asked me at the beginning what I was doing over there. I told him. He asked again, and then for more detail. I was compliant and friendly. He then asked me what my current job was, where I was going in the lower 48, how long I was staying, where I was staying that night, what I was going to be doing while I was there, twice where I lived in AK, and then again at the end what I was doing previously overseas.


Welcome to FT.

It seems obvious to me that this questioning had nothing to do with determining your eligibility for admission (you had a valid US passport) or with determining if you were carrying items that were contraband that would be an issue for Customs. What it was is a fishing expedition from an agent at a usually quiet road crossing hoping to make a Big Catch (TM).


They shoot themselves in the foot and are their own worst enemy, making law abiding citizens feel like enemies.

^

Totally agree. Law enforcement as a whole, not just CBP, frequently seems to either not understand or not care about the negative consequences of treating law abiding citizens poorly.

I personally have had no negative encounters with the police, but just reading the details of the Cheye Calvo case, the Brett Darrow (James Kuehnlein) case, Anthony Graber case, etc., tell me all I need to know about the mentality of most law enforcement officers and their management. Management inevitably starts with trying to cover up what happened, and even those officers that don't participate in these sorts of abuses refuse to publicly condemn their colleagues that do.

Because if they [US citizens] don't [provide a local address], they'll be sent to secondary for a couple hours to cool their jets?

Can they do that?

Even if I'm not claiming any more than a non-resident customs exemption?

They can and they will. I usually bring in $0-$100 of goods, but I have been threatened with spending the night in the airport by CBP with nothing but a carryon holding two changes of clothes.

The real worry is if you have a pc or other electronic device (phone, pad, usb stick, etc) because then they can really have fun. If you're lucky it will still be in working condition when they return it to you sometime in the next 6-12 months. There have been cases of longer retention period, but these were usually porn or business espionage related.

Can they do that?

Even if I'm not claiming any more than a non-resident customs exemption?

As several stories on this board have pointed out, they certainly can, even if they may not.

And here I thought I was a privacy freak....This thread almost made my head explode. It honestly never occurred to me to refuse to answer CBP questions - and I've almost been arrested for mouthing off to the TSA.

I really don't understand the people up in arms about being asked questions, but I'm probably just not seeing the whole picture. For example, if I am required to carry an export license waiver or commercial invoicefor my laptop and phone (which I am), shouldn't CBP have the ability to question me on where I've been and my type of business? If they don't, what's the point of me even bothering to carry it?

And here I thought I was a privacy freak....This thread almost made my head explode. It honestly never occurred to me to refuse to answer CBP questions - and I've almost been arrested for mouthing off to the TSA.

I really don't understand the people up in arms about being asked questions, but I'm probably just not seeing the whole picture. For example, if I am required to carry an export license waiver or commercial invoicefor my laptop and phone (which I am), shouldn't CBP have the ability to question me on where I've been and my type of business? If they don't, what's the point of me even bothering to carry it?

For me it's not that much about privacy and more about wasting my time at the end of a long flight - sure the officer has every right to question anyone who does not seem to be who there are - but for most law abiding travelers everything they need to know is there without asking any questions - a valid passport (no evidence of tampering etc) and a customs form.

Since I'm also a Citizen of a country that does not process entry this way I don't see the point of the questions. I have seen UK citizens being questioned on entry - clearly there was a reason for the officer to become suspicious. Also people are stopped and searched at customs in the UK if something looks out of the ordinary. However, the questioning of everyone and in many cases with what seems to me irrelevant questions is what makes me wonder.

However, the questioning of everyone and in many cases with what seems to me irrelevant questions is what makes me wonder.

It's not always everyone or irrelevant though: that's what's confusing to me. I've never, ever been asked a question by immigration officials - just "welcome home". Particularly amusing at YYV, but I digress... At customs, I'm usually just asked what kind of business I am in (having checked "business" on the form). That's relevant, IMO.

It's not always everyone or irrelevant though: that's what's confusing to me. I've never, ever been asked a question by immigration officials - just "welcome home". Particularly amusing at YYV, but I digress... At customs, I'm usually just asked what kind of business I am in (having checked "business" on the form). That's relevant, IMO.

Okay I stand corrected :) - I thought it was everyone - also I'm a US citizen of approx 2.5 years and always have got questions and on one occasion fairly extensive questions (i.e. same question twice trying to catch me out etc) with nothing in my behavior or documents to warrant this so I assumed it was normal.

As far as irrelevant questions - how does asking where I have been establish whether I'm a US Citizen or not (as one example that happens to me). If you have checked "yes" in any of the boxes I agree a question about it may be in order - but again I've never had to check anything as "yes".

As far as irrelevant questions - how does asking where I have been establish whether I'm a US Citizen or not (as one example that happens to me). If you have checked "yes" in any of the boxes I agree a question about it may be in order - but again I've never had to check anything as "yes".

Maybe it's me. I'll be more specific: The only question I've ever gotten from customs is "what kind of business are you in?" Since our industry is bound by export regulations and we've had people heavily fined for bringing restricted documents out of the country, that seems like a fair question. Going further, asking where I've been (which has never happened to me) allows them to verify that my export license is valid for the countries I've visited. So what's the problem with answering?

(I can't believe I'm defending the US government - this is a new concept for me, so go easy)

Well okay I'm entering a gray area myself with export control although I should know more about it also given what I do. I have worked on several ITAR projects and one project which was a defense project but nothing that required active security clearance. Once you get into work like that the DoD does require a full travel history and they need to know where you've been to etc. However that's not the job of the CBP to enforce as far as I know.

If you work on such projects I'm guessing your company would typically provide you with the necessary paperwork if you travel on business. I've never traveled overseas on any of these projects for work.

The real question for me is what is CBP exactly enforcing - my understanding is that they are enforcing checking your resident status and whether you are bringing in anything you should be declaring. They can ask questions to "catch you out" and they may net a few "catches" as a result of doing so but I cannot imagine the number is particularly significant.

Just reminded me of the last time I cleared CBP at YVR about a month ago - lots of officers and no many passengers so one officer was checking everyone's passport and photo extensively before sending them on to the booth where everything was checked again. Kind of reminded me of the TSA.

If you work on such projects I'm guessing your company would typically provide you with the necessary paperwork if you travel on business. I've never traveled overseas on any of these projects for work.

They do provide it and I do carry it. We've been told it's for CBP in case they ask, so I've always assumed CBP has the right to question me as far as what I'm carrying and where I've been. (I'm talking strictly ITAR and EAR, nothing classified, which is obviouslysomething completely different.)

The real question for me is what is CBP exactly enforcing - my understanding is that they are enforcing checking your resident status and whether you are bringing in anything you should be declaring.
The fact we carry license waivers and commercial invoices implies that they are also responsible for export control to some extent, but I could be wrong. And if I'm wrong, that answers my initial question.

Sorry for the rant, but googling the legal limitations of CBP led me to this site, and at least it's comforting to see I'm not the only one picked on at the borders of my own country!

Welcome to FlyerTalk! :)


I really don't understand the people up in arms about being asked questions, but I'm probably just not seeing the whole picture.

Try being a young looking person AMS-DTW, and being asked the same questions over and over again, to the point of almost missing my connection. It's not my fault that other countries have the common sense to decriminalize some drugs, but I've never even tried marijuana. :rolleyes:


EDIT: additional quote

Why must a US citizen provide a local address? Just because the CBP form says so, at question 4?
Because if they don't, they'll be sent to secondary for a couple hours to cool their jets?

Years ago I was coming back into the States with a lady friend. When we were filling out our forms, I noticed she wrote down my address as her residence (we lived in different States). Horrors! :eek: :p As others have mentioned CPB really doesn't care about what address you put down.

They do provide it and I do carry it. We've been told it's for CBP in case they ask, so I've always assumed CBP has the right to question me as far as what I'm carrying and where I've been. (I'm talking strictly ITAR and EAR, nothing classified, which is obviouslysomething completely different.)


The fact we carry license waivers and commercial invoices implies that they are also responsible for export control to some extent, but I could be wrong. And if I'm wrong, that answers my initial question.

This goes back to what was said earlier - let's say you are carrying export control material and the paperwork to go with it - so you check "yes" and possibly get some questions. Looking at the other scenarios - let's say you are carrying the correct paperwork but decide to check "no" - well you would be lying but if they did discover the stuff and your paperwork what can they pin on you given you have the correct documents. Besides why would someone lie if they are carrying the correct documents.

So this brings us to those who may be carrying export controlled stuff without the corrects docs/illegally. If you think about it I cannot imagine any entity doing sufficiently important work in that field to risk not following the regs. So I would think chance of them catching someone with export controlled stuff is extremely low. Could there be someone doing - sure anything's possible. Does that warrant questioning everyone about their travel plans because they could be carrying some restricted item - that's where I feel they are wasting 99%+ of people's time.

Bear in mind that my experience has been with not carrying anything of this sort and checking "no" in all the boxes. For example I have been asked whether I have anything to declare when I have all the boxes checked "no". So to me that's another pointless question since the answer is already on the form.

We had a participant of this forum who was an attorney and ran into a situation where he refused to answer a question asked by CBP (in that case because it was privileged, but the same rule applies) and they were threatening to not permit him into the country (this was pre-clearance in Canada). The attorney was in the process of getting his office to seek an injunction when CBP changed their mind about the requirement to answer.



I would be interested in reading this report. Can you provide a link?

Not quite how RK said it went down but here it is,

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/358102-us-immigration-wanted-me-break-law.html#post3245500

Not quite how RK said it went down but here it is,

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/358102-us-immigration-wanted-me-break-law.html#post3245500
I remember that one, but I also remember (or think I do) another incident where it went further and the attorney was closer to needing to take legal action to protect the privilege.

I remember that one, but I also remember (or think I do) another incident where it went further and the attorney was closer to needing to take legal action to protect the privilege.

There is at least one additional post from ptravel where he said that he was on the verge of seeking a writ. I suspect the details fade with time.

Does anyone know if there is recourse for being treated like a criminal when trying to return to your home in the US? I am a US citizen w/no criminal record - not even an outstanding parking ticket, yet my name is evidently similar to a terrorist of the worst sort. I was detained for 3 hours along with my daughter, denied a phone call (could not even let me family know where i was) and told repeatedly to just sit down. Is this even legal? No explanation or charges, no phone call and mistreatment?

There is at least one additional post from ptravel where he said that he was on the verge of seeking a writ. I suspect the details fade with time.

Writ of Mandamus. It compels the government to abide by the law and its rules; not make s*t up.

Does anyone know if there is recourse for being treated like a criminal when trying to return to your home in the US? I am a US citizen w/no criminal record - not even an outstanding parking ticket, yet my name is evidently similar to a terrorist of the worst sort. I was detained for 3 hours along with my daughter, denied a phone call (could not even let me family know where i was) and told repeatedly to just sit down. Is this even legal? No explanation or charges, no phone call and mistreatment?


Welcome to flyertalk. Great first post.

Is legal.

You should talk to an attorney so that on future travels if you are not immediately released, he can file a writ. Then arrange with your family to call your attorney if they don't see you emerge from arrivals at the airport within two hours of actual arrival at the gate with the door open. When the door opens, notify your family via a text so that they can start the two hour count down.

When it starts to get rough with the CBP, inform them you will now be silent, and in x minutes, your attorney will be contacted, and you demand your attorney.

It probably won't end your detainment, but it will let them know that maybe they should pick on someone else.

If your daughter is not yet an adult, hopefully this inspires her to a career where she can take on these thugs.

Good luck.

Question for Firebug if still reading this thread.

Can you explain why it is that when I tell a CBP agent that I'd rather not answer questions about my profession, travels, activities, etc. because I believe it's an invasion of my personal privacy, I am invariably sent to have my bags inspected. I have a hard time believing it is anything other than spite. I'm a U.S. citizen who has entered the country 20 to 30 times a year for the last 20 years so it's pretty obvious I have legitimate reasons for travel and am not doing anything illegal.

Question for Firebug if still reading this thread.

Can you explain why it is that when I tell a CBP agent that I'd rather not answer questions about my profession, travels, activities, etc. because I believe it's an invasion of my personal privacy, I am invariably sent to have my bags inspected. I have a hard time believing it is anything other than spite. I'm a U.S. citizen who has entered the country 20 to 30 times a year for the last 20 years so it's pretty obvious I have legitimate reasons for travel and am not doing anything illegal.

The claimed reason generally involves asserting something along the following lines: the CBP may have to do so because CBP has no other way to know ____, ____, ____, ____, etc. about you and your belongings or the conditions applicable to that clearing at the US port of entry; or perhaps your circumstances are different from before.

The Questions can be asked; You are NOT REQUIRED to answer them. You submit a written declaration and that's enough.

Remember, CBP are law enforcement officers and can arrest you.


And they have guns. This is why Global Entry is great - no need to talk to the CBP. But when I have to -- I remember they aren't TSA and can really inflict delay and pain. Raises the bar for me. I will drag my feet with the TSA whenever possible. CBP not so much.

s

I was asked by a US CBP in Nasseau how much money do you have. Up to that point Incalmly and politely answered his questions but that one set me off. I told him rather sternly - my net worth is none of your god damn business, the IRS maybe but not yours. Where is your supervisor.

He back pedaled and said he wanted to know how much currency I was carrying, a different question which was OK to ask.

I was asked by a US CBP in Nasseau how much money do you have. Up to that point Incalmly and politely answered his questions but that one set me off. I told him rather sternly - my net worth is none of your god damn business, the IRS maybe but not yours. Where is your supervisor.

He back pedaled and said he wanted to know how much currency I was carrying, a different question which was OK to ask.

If he phrased it "how much money do you have?", I think it's pretty obvious that he's referring to how much you have with you at the time, not how much you have in general. You could have simply asked "right now?" rather than being a jerk.

If he phrased it "how much money do you have?", I think it's pretty obvious that he's referring to how much you have with you at the time, not how much you have in general. You could have simply asked "right now?" rather than being a jerk.

The CBP was already given a declaration indicating that the FTer wasn't a jerk. The declaration form already provides an opportunity to indicate to the CBP whether or not the passenger is transporting an amount of money or some other financial instruments that create a declaration requirement.

The CBP was already given a declaration indicating that the FTer wasn't a jerk. The declaration form already provides an opportunity to indicate to the CBP whether or not the passenger is transporting an amount of money or some other financial instruments that create a declaration requirement.

Yes, but they often ask you questions verbally that you have already answered on the declaration form, just to try and catch you off guard should you have lied.

I wasn't there and I don't know how the question was phrased, but if it was phrased exactly like stated, then I think it's quite clear what was intended. If it wasn't clear, the passenger could have asked for clarification. But being asked how much money you are carrying is very common at customs checkpoints all over the world, while I have never heard of anyone being asked about their net worth.

Yes, but they often ask you questions verbally that you have already answered on the declaration form, just to try and catch you off guard should you have lied.

That's an example of the CBP employee being the jerk trying to jerk the passenger into a position of being compromised by declarations which the CBP perceives/imagines as being inconsistent and can use to hassle the passenger even further.

If he phrased it "how much money do you have?", I think it's pretty obvious that he's referring to how much you have with you at the time, not how much you have in general. You could have simply asked "right now?" rather than being a jerk.

I disagree. That question is open to too much interpretation, and I wouldn't have answered it unless he/she rephrased the question.

Writ of Mandamus. It compels the government to abide by the law and its rules; not make s*t up.

The relevant writ in a case like this is a writ of habeas corpus, not mandamus which is disfavored when another remedy exists.

See for example, Benavides v. Napolitano et. al., 1:10-cv-223 and Castro el. al. v. Freeman et. al., 1:11-cv-00085, both in the Southern District of Texas.

(Michael T. Freeman is a CBP port director; he has been a defendant in numerous habeas corpus actions).

Today at LAX the CBP officer barely said a word to me. I was coming back from Thailand, Cambodia and Sri Lanka as a single male. He just took U.S. my passport, scanned it, held it up to compare the photo to me, and handed it back and I was on my way. A pleasant surprise.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe you have 5th amendment rights at CBP.

Questions may be asked to ascertain if you are indeed legally allowed in and to determine if you are compliant with customs regulations.

You can choose to not answer, which will then probably require an extensive interview and search of your belongings. You are not asserting a 5th amendment right here, just delaying yourself on some misguided principle

Asking how much money you have, since the importation of negotiable a and cash is regulated, is a reasonable question. If you get in a huff and a puff about your personal wealth, you just look like an inexperienced traveller and CBP will treat you accordingly.

Just submitting the form does not preclude CBP from asking you the same questions again. Getting torqued about it will get you the 12 hour experience .

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe you have 5th amendment rights at CBP.

People are entitled to believe fictions (or disbelieve facts) which they may or may not fancy, as in the above claim about invoking the 5th Amendment at a CBP facility in the US.

The Fifth Amendment right against being compelled into self-incrimination can be used when dealing with CBP.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe you have 5th amendment rights at CBP.

..

You can choose to not answer, which will then probably require an extensive interview and search of your belongings. You are not asserting a 5th amendment right here, just delaying yourself on some misguided principle


CBP officers and lawyers in this forum have already confirmed that you do in fact have a 5th amendment right that you're allowed to assert at any border crossing.

Others have also confirmed that doing so is likely to lead to an extensive interview and search and potentially noting of your file that you are a "problem child" who should be similarly detained at every crossing in the future.

CBP officers and lawyers in this forum have already confirmed that you do in fact have a 5th amendment right that you're allowed to assert at any border crossing.

Others have also confirmed that doing so is likely to lead to an extensive interview and search and potentially noting of your file that you are a "problem child" who should be similarly detained at every crossing in the future.

This is an inconvenience that cuts both ways I believe.

This is an inconvenience that cuts both ways I believe.

While I see your point, I'm guessing it's far more of an inconvenience to the average traveler (since there is only one of you and time is typically a precious commodity) than to CBP, who has substantially more people and time.

Either way, I'd like to believe that the average individual CBP officer would rather spend his or her time finding drugs, smugglers, and actual threats to national security than inconveniencing a traveler that doesn't "play ball," so to speak.

Either way, I'd like to believe that the average individual CBP officer would rather spend his or her time finding drugs, smugglers, and actual threats to national security than inconveniencing a traveler that doesn't "play ball," so to speak.

I would like to believe that as well. Unfortunately, there is a lot of video (https://www.checkpointusa.org/) documenting that belief to be unjustified.

Folks, please stick to the topic at hand. Thx.

---------
essxjay, TS/S moderator