Unfriendly CBP officers

Old Apr 14, 2014, 12:57 pm
  #61  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by SeriouslyLost
I doubt it would surprise many people around here.

Additionally, how Mexico treats them is the subject for another thread: the question remains why so many US CBP officers are so often such unnecessarily complete and utter power tripping jerks right from the very beginning of any encounter with them.
While the discussion of illegal immigration into Mexico may be a topic for another thread, in the context it was used in this thread it was used as an example that the statement may not have been as accurate as the poster believed.

The rest of your post is an opinion. One that you are certainly entitled to. However, that does not make it fact nor accurate. That being said there are certainly officers that do not come across as most welcoming. There are officers that are in the wrong profession.

However, the problem will not be solved by the traveler taking it upon themselves to "fix", "put the officer in their place" or to challenge those officers. The traveler needs to ask to speak with a supervisor to address behaviors the traveler perceives to be inappropriate. Before you jump on it, I purposely used the word perceives. While there are certainly officers that do in fact act inappropriately, those instances have to be documented before anything can be done about them. This is required under the system that we have to operate under. Officers are like everyone else and can have bad days while this will not excuse their behavior if there is a pattern of inappropriate behavior it is dealt with much differently than someone having a bad day.

The other factor is at the end of the day not everyone is going to agree on how any particular job should be done and it doesn't matter what the job is. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion on it. However, everyone does not get a say on how it is actually done. That is generally left to the folks that have training, experience, and most importantly the people that are responsible for the good or bad outcome of that job. That is not to say that input from other people, inside or outside sources should not be considered but there are times when not everyone has the same information, knowledge of techniques, trends, or experience levels.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2014, 7:22 pm
  #62  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: LGA
Programs: Double Unobtainium, Grace L. Ferguson Airline & Storm Door Co.
Posts: 154
Originally Posted by Firebug4
However, the problem will not be solved by the traveler taking it upon themselves to "fix", "put the officer in their place" or to challenge those officers. The traveler needs to ask to speak with a supervisor to address behaviors the traveler perceives to be inappropriate.
Who are you addressing here? Neither the post you're quoting nor the OP mentioned "fixing" the problem, challenging the officers, or "putting them in their place." The OP said, rather mildly I thought:

Originally Posted by goforgold99
To what degree does one have to tolerate their behavior? Can you request to speak to their supervisor or is this not a good idea? Is their any way to complain or give feedback to the CBP so they would start improving the training of the officers in how to respectfully treat visitors?
I think that asking for professionalism and common courtesy is not too much, and I don't even think it's beyond CBP's capabilities. No one is expecting a foot rub and a welcome glass of Champagne, but it'd be nice to at least count on a level of service equivalent to the post office or DMV, especially from armed officers with great power.
Vidiot is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2014, 7:33 pm
  #63  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,697
Originally Posted by Firebug4
Cite?? (Hint) Your data and numbers are just as off as you are claiming his are.
Whoops, meant about 40 passengers an hour. And yes, I'm guessing based on standing in line and estimating 90 seconds per passenger.
RadioGirl is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2014, 8:44 pm
  #64  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: here and there
Programs: EB*G, UA ex1K
Posts: 570
Originally Posted by cbn42
Well I don't mean to defend CBP, but they do seem to have a harder job than their counterparts in other countries. Few countries have trouble with illegal immigration, terrorism and drug smuggling to the same extent as the US. No one is trying to sneak into Mexico, and al Qaida isn't going after Canada.
Hardly true - the US is simply inexcusably incompetent in this regard. Surely you're not arguing that drugs are a problem only in the US or that they are magicaly teleported into other countries!

Mexico has significant illegal immigration on its southern border. Many European countries have (per capita) levels of legal and illegal immigration comparable to the US.

If you read the news, you would notice that Europe has had several serious post 9/11 terrorist attacks (UK 7/7, Madrid Atocha...), any number of minor ones (not making US news), as well as long history of terror activities in some countries (IRA, Brigado Rossi, ex-Yugoslavia). I had less hassle traveling from Ireland to Europe on 9/13 than I do on an average trip to the US.

India, China and Russia have all had major terrorist attacks in recent years -- I've traveled to all three in the past couple of years with zero border hassle: India, which I thought might be a nightmare, was extremely polite and less inefficient than I expected; China was zero problem and impressively efficient; Russia was zero hassle at the border, but they do have some funny ideas about queueing there .

I have a US passport and I have had more rude, obnoxious, and sexist encounters with US CBP than any other developed country I've traveled to (Canada comes second). Actually, I barely remember being asked a question anywhere else... I figure I waste more time in queues and stupid/rude questions on a single trip in the US, than I do on a year of travel all over the rest of the world.
neko is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2014, 9:05 pm
  #65  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: here and there
Programs: EB*G, UA ex1K
Posts: 570
Originally Posted by Firebug4

The other factor is at the end of the day not everyone is going to agree on how any particular job should be done and it doesn't matter what the job is. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion on it. However, everyone does not get a say on how it is actually done. That is generally left to the folks that have training, experience, and most importantly the people that are responsible for the good or bad outcome of that job. That is not to say that input from other people, inside or outside sources should not be considered but there are times when not everyone has the same information, knowledge of techniques, trends, or experience levels.

FB
Yes, but many of us of FT have extensive experience entering and leaving other countries - both as US and non-US passport holders. Other highly developed countries and even many less developed countries are clearly more polite, more efficient and more professional, and seem to accomplish this without any ill effect on their homelands.

Maybe there's some secret mysterious reason why American security is uniquely protected by inefficiency, obnoxiousness and rudeness, but I kind of doubt it...

I know a suprising number of professional Europeans -- some with longstanding ties to the US -- who say they simply won't travel to the US anymore. I don't know any Americans who say the opposite....
neko is offline  
Old Apr 15, 2014, 9:16 am
  #66  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 817
I think the big thing is many people can't tell the difference between a lack of warmth and rudeness.

A border officer can be curt, not smile, etc and not nessecarily be rude... they need to process a lot of people and each little "Hello how are you Sir" like you'd get at McDonalds slows things down.
greggarious is offline  
Old Apr 15, 2014, 10:35 am
  #67  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by neko
Yes, but many of us of FT have extensive experience entering and leaving other countries - both as US and non-US passport holders. Other highly developed countries and even many less developed countries are clearly more polite, more efficient and more professional, and seem to accomplish this without any ill effect on their homelands.

Maybe there's some secret mysterious reason why American security is uniquely protected by inefficiency, obnoxiousness and rudeness, but I kind of doubt it...

I know a suprising number of professional Europeans -- some with longstanding ties to the US -- who say they simply won't travel to the US anymore. I don't know any Americans who say the opposite....
All that extensive experience centers solely on the entry process and then only on how fast and painless in the perception of the frequent traveler it is. That perception is then used to measure how efficient and professional it is. However, that is not an effective or accurate measure of the process. That experience deals little or not at all with how effective or what the results of the entry process is beyond how fast one got through it.

The entry process for people and cargo entering a country are designed to address multiple problems and threats. Those problems and threats range a very large gamut of things that not only include illegal immigration and drugs, but things that are not so obvious but can have a large effect on economy, consumer safety, agricultural ramifications and many many more. These things are not clearly evident in the society that many live in on a daily basis they are even less so in society that people do not live in on a daily basis and are merely visiting.

Going back to the two obvious reasons for having an entry process drugs and illegal immigration. The people that design these entry processes have a much different focus on the entry process than the average frequent flyer. This can be evidenced by many of the posts in these threads. The frequent flyer and not so frequent flyer only really care about getting thru the process as quickly as possible. They spend little if any time at all thinking beyond that. Take the number of times in these threads that it has been said why can't the US be like fill in the blank country. That is because every country is different, has different priorities, different challenges, and in many cases different laws.

Admittedly, my numbers may be a bit dated because I haven't really looked lately. The illegal immigrant population of the United States is anywhere from three million to twelve million. It is probably much closer to the twelve million number. Only about forty two percent of that number are Mexican Nationals. That means the rest of that twelve million are coming from other places that the US does not share a border with. Those people are traveling on smuggling routes through other countries. Some of those routes are known to authorities, some are not and the routes are constantly changing. That means those other countries are getting first crack at stopping that illegal immigration. Yet, it doesn't really seem that it is happening. So to the people whose actual responsibility it is to address the problem of illegal immigration the entry processes of those other countries you refer to are not so efficient or effective. They may seem so to the frequent traveler but the reality is it depends greatly on the parameters used to measure the procedure. Clearly, different parameters are used by the traveler.

Drugs are a very similar situation. Drugs for the most part are not manufactured in the United States in significant quantities. Drugs are almost always illegally imported into the United States. Meth for the most part comes directly from Mexico which we share a common border with. However, cocaine, heroin, and others are manufactured in other countries that do not share a common border. Same story, the drugs and money have to cross multiple countries borders to reach the United States. Those countries have first crack and again the contraband is still reaching the United States. Their procedures and processes don't really seem so efficient and effective when your concern doesn't solely consist of how fast and painless a traveler gets through the process.

To be fair to those other countries, they don't make those problems as big a priority as the United States does because in many cases the problems are just passing through. The problems have different meanings when you are the destination and not the layover.

FB

Last edited by Firebug4; Apr 15, 2014 at 10:46 am
Firebug4 is offline  
Old Apr 15, 2014, 10:43 am
  #68  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by greggarious
I think the big thing is many people can't tell the difference between a lack of warmth and rudeness.

A border officer can be curt, not smile, etc and not nessecarily be rude... they need to process a lot of people and each little "Hello how are you Sir" like you'd get at McDonalds slows things down.
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
Whoops, meant about 40 passengers an hour. And yes, I'm guessing based on standing in line and estimating 90 seconds per passenger.
While many things factor into why things go the way they do both of the above statements do have a large part to play.

RadioGirl you are close before things like biometrics being captured were added to the process the officer had 45 seconds per passenger that was about 80 passengers an hour.. I am sure that number has increased as things were added to the inspection process. However, that number was tracked and the officer was accountable for it. That concept has its pros and cons as well as some unintended consequences.

FB

Last edited by Firebug4; Apr 15, 2014 at 10:48 am
Firebug4 is offline  
Old Apr 15, 2014, 7:27 pm
  #69  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,697
Originally Posted by Firebug4
...

Admittedly, my numbers may be a bit dated because I haven't really looked lately. The illegal immigrant population of the United States is anywhere from three million to twelve million. It is probably much closer to the twelve million number. Only about forty two percent of that number are Mexican Nationals. That means the rest of that twelve million are coming from other places that the US does not share a border with. Those people are traveling on smuggling routes through other countries. Some of those routes are known to authorities, some are not and the routes are constantly changing. That means those other countries are getting first crack at stopping that illegal immigration. Yet, it doesn't really seem that it is happening. So to the people whose actual responsibility it is to address the problem of illegal immigration the entry processes of those other countries you refer to are not so efficient or effective. They may seem so to the frequent traveler but the reality is it depends greatly on the parameters used to measure the procedure. Clearly, different parameters are used by the traveler.
This is a simplistic analysis. Many (although I doubt any of us have the numbers to back this up) of the illegal immigrants in the US were not illegal when they left the previous country; they were not illegal when they entered the US. They became illegal when they overstayed their visa limits. So to expect another country to stop them when they left (legally) is ridiculous.

Even so, it is hard for us frequent flyers to understand why CBP being rude or unprofessional when interviewing arriving passengers helps in identifying the ones who are illegal or who are legal but plan to overstay. I don't think you've explained that part very well.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
Drugs are a very similar situation. ... Drugs are almost always illegally imported into the United States. Meth for the most part comes directly from Mexico which we share a common border with. However, cocaine, heroin, and others are manufactured in other countries that do not share a common border. Same story, the drugs and money have to cross multiple countries borders to reach the United States. Those countries have first crack and again the contraband is still reaching the United States. Their procedures and processes don't really seem so efficient and effective when your concern doesn't solely consist of how fast and painless a traveler gets through the process.
Why "multiple borders"? I am not an expert in the drug trade but many many countries have direct flights to the US.

And again, why would you expect that the Customs and Border officers in those countries would search for contraband when people are leaving? (Yes, other authorities in those countries should be enforcing drug laws, etc.) There are OTC medications widely available in the US that are illegal in other countries (and vice versa). Does CBP search US passengers' checked baggage leaving the US to ensure that they are not carrying any of those medications? Are US CBP staff expected to know the import rules for every country, and match each bag to all the countries that passenger will be visiting? I doubt it.

And as above, please explain why being rude and unprofessional helps US CBP find drug smugglers more effectively than being professional.
Originally Posted by Firebug4
To be fair to those other countries, they don't make those problems as big a priority as the United States does because in many cases the problems are just passing through. The problems have different meanings when you are the destination and not the layover.
Australia takes a pretty hard line on smuggling drugs. Australia is often "the destination" and rarely a layover. Yet our Immigration staff manage to be polite (not particularly friendly, but polite) and professional.

And on genuine international "layovers", passengers don't go through customs or immigration at all, so you can't really blame intermediate countries for lax customs standards in this case.
RadioGirl is offline  
Old Apr 15, 2014, 8:10 pm
  #70  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: KOA/PHKO
Programs: Starbucks Gold :-)
Posts: 825
I'll admit I've always had very friendly CBP officers. I usually enter at pre-clearance in DUB, but have at JFK. I've done the land borders (BC/WA, ON/NY and QC/NY) and each time, super friendly on both directions - but I did notice they seemed to be tougher on Canadian citizens. Perhaps it's because they have to essentially apply for the visa status at the border, so are subject to extra scrutiny.
MDTyKe is offline  
Old Apr 15, 2014, 10:28 pm
  #71  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,570
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
This is a simplistic analysis. Many (although I doubt any of us have the numbers to back this up) of the illegal immigrants in the US were not illegal when they left the previous country; they were not illegal when they entered the US. They became illegal when they overstayed their visa limits. So to expect another country to stop them when they left (legally) is ridiculous.
Those people are not normally considered "illegal immigrants", although of course the definition depends on who you ask. They are usually considered out-of-status immigrants, which means they entered legally but violated the terms of their visa, perhaps by unauthorized work, enrollment in university, or failing to leave when required. This can often be corrected without leaving the country, and rarely results in imprisonment or deportation without several opportunities to leave voluntarily.

Originally Posted by RadioGirl
Even so, it is hard for us frequent flyers to understand why CBP being rude or unprofessional when interviewing arriving passengers helps in identifying the ones who are illegal or who are legal but plan to overstay. I don't think you've explained that part very well.
There is one response which says that people who are hiding something are more likely to reveal it when placed under stress. I have no idea if it has any scientific basis, but it' what I've been told.

Originally Posted by RadioGirl
Why "multiple borders"? I am not an expert in the drug trade but many many countries have direct flights to the US.
The drug supply network in the Americas is very complex and well-developed. It isn't a matter of getting on a flight from the location of production to the destination. Drugs may be grown in one place, processed/refined in another, and wholesaled somewhere else. Gangs jealously guard their territory and want a cut any time drugs go through "their" area. Add in the need to constantly switch routes to evade detection, and you are looking at a very complex pathway.

I don't know how it is in Australia, but in the US if you ship a parcel across the country with a tracking number it will typically take 3-4 flights to get to its destination. This type of network would be a hassle for passenger transport but is by far the most efficient system for shipping goods that are not time-sensitive.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 2:15 am
  #72  
Moderator, Hilton Honors
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: on a short leash
Programs: some
Posts: 71,419
Originally Posted by greggarious
I think the big thing is many people can't tell the difference between a lack of warmth and rudeness.

A border officer can be curt, not smile, etc and not nessecarily be rude... they need to process a lot of people and each little "Hello how are you Sir" like you'd get at McDonalds slows things down.
And yet immigration and customs officers in other countries somehow manage to be more pleasant than in USA. I guess the "lack of warmth" is cultural
Kiwi Flyer is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 12:05 pm
  #73  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Antonio, TX
Programs: AA EXP, DL Silver, Global Entry
Posts: 1,862
Originally Posted by Kiwi Flyer
And yet immigration and customs officers in other countries somehow manage to be more pleasant than in USA. I guess the "lack of warmth" is cultural
On the whole that might be true but by personal experience I can say it's not always true. Having lived 12 years out of the US in a couple of countries in Europe and in Africa I've run into a pretty broad spectrum from pleasant and friendly to absolutely rude and downright hostile. Don't even ask my wife about her experience in Heathrow last year....I was told we can fly to Europe through just about any airport but Heathrow and that was reinforced by "The Look".
Randyk47 is offline  
Old Apr 17, 2014, 3:52 pm
  #74  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
This is a simplistic analysis. Many (although I doubt any of us have the numbers to back this up) of the illegal immigrants in the US were not illegal when they left the previous country; they were not illegal when they entered the US. They became illegal when they overstayed their visa limits. So to expect another country to stop them when they left (legally) is ridiculous.

Even so, it is hard for us frequent flyers to understand why CBP being rude or unprofessional when interviewing arriving passengers helps in identifying the ones who are illegal or who are legal but plan to overstay. I don't think you've explained that part very well.

Why "multiple borders"? I am not an expert in the drug trade but many many countries have direct flights to the US.

And again, why would you expect that the Customs and Border officers in those countries would search for contraband when people are leaving? (Yes, other authorities in those countries should be enforcing drug laws, etc.) There are OTC medications widely available in the US that are illegal in other countries (and vice versa). Does CBP search US passengers' checked baggage leaving the US to ensure that they are not carrying any of those medications? Are US CBP staff expected to know the import rules for every country, and match each bag to all the countries that passenger will be visiting? I doubt it.

And as above, please explain why being rude and unprofessional helps US CBP find drug smugglers more effectively than being professional.

Australia takes a pretty hard line on smuggling drugs. Australia is often "the destination" and rarely a layover. Yet our Immigration staff manage to be polite (not particularly friendly, but polite) and professional.

And on genuine international "layovers", passengers don't go through customs or immigration at all, so you can't really blame intermediate countries for lax customs standards in this case.
I may have used simple terms. However, the analysis is not simplistic at all. I also can get the numbers to back it up but I can tell you your assumption is incorrect concerning how the illegal population ends up in the United States. The last check was close to 50/50 on overstaying or otherwise becoming out of status to using fraud/just sneaking across the border.

I don't expect other countries to search for illegal immigrants or contraband leaving their country all the time. Random checks would be nice. What I really would like to see is for them to check for illegal immigrants and contraband coming into their country both through ports and between. I am not talking OTC medications I am talking heroin, cocaine and people which are what I mentioned and are not legal in most countries. You are the one that brought up OTC medications which is not really what is being discussed and will only confuse the discussion.

When I say multiple borders I mean exactly that. I do have a fair amount of knowledge in that subject and I can tell you that illegal immigrants and contraband (drugs) very rarely follow a direct route. They tend to pass through multiple countries using multiple methods and documents. They fly to one country and pass a port of entry with a false document then cross the next border between the ports using a guide. It varies a lot but usually they have passed through anywhere from four to eight or more other countries to get the United States and they were not anymore bonifide entering those countries as they are entering the United States. The vast majority of people coming the United States illegally don't just jump on a direct flight and come in a day. The average duration of the trip is measured in months not days and involves many different borders. It is a very similar story for illegally immigrating or moving contraband into Europe as well but the numbers and scale are not.

You need to understand that a person that is travelling illegally doesn't travel in the same manner that you or any other frequent traveler does. They don't just get on an airplane to go to the United States and get there twelve to twenty four hours later. A layover in a city for someone traveling illegally often is staying in a flea bit hotel room with 10 other people for two weeks. The manner in which it happens can be different but there is almost always someone who is making money off of it.

You don't have to take my word on it. There are countless open source material on the subject.
http://www.unodc.org/toc/en/crimes/m...smuggling.html

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-ana...-of-drug-trade

https://reportingproject.net/occrp/i...ug-trafficking

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/trafficking...t_2006ver2.pdf

Starting on about page 60 of the last link talks in detail about routes. Old info but the techniques are still used.


I think the perception of rude and unprofessional can be very subjective. There are many different techniques that are used to illicit information from people. Some techniques lend themselves to certain situations better than others. Some techniques require significant more time than will ever be available in the average scenario of the average traveler making entry. It becomes very much of a very delicate balancing act of the need to get enough information to make a informed, accurate decision to admit against the need of both the traveler and the officer to process people as quickly as possible.

Very often it is a matter of time. For example, I have worked in very varied locations in terms of environment. I have worked airports, land borders, and seaports. All three for a significant amount of time each. I worked a busy airport for a number of years. I learned rather quickly that I had to adjust my manner dealing with travelers. When I started, I was just me. I was interested in people, where they were going, where they came from not for the job aspect just because I was interested. However, I found that was difficult to do when you only have 45 seconds to talk with someone. You can't really ask someone how there flight was because they are going to tell you and you really don't have time. So I adjusted, I asked the questions I needed to ask to gauge truthfulness and moved on. If I only took 30 seconds that means I have 15 extra seconds for someone else that I may not be so sure about and need more time to make the decision. That happens often, family of four from the UK going to Disney. I can do that in a minute now I have a minute banked to use later with someone who is appears to be evasive.

I then transferred to a much smaller land border port on the Northern Border. Totally, different environment. I found that when I did my job the way I had grown accustomed to doing it in the airport, out of necessity, I was characterized as moving too quickly and rude in some cases. These are some of the unintended consequences of having time restraints on contacts with the public on entry. While I understand why they are necessary, they do come with complications.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old Apr 17, 2014, 4:03 pm
  #75  
formerly known as Tad's Broiled Steaks
Shangri-La Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,412
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
You need to get a new globe; the UN currently recognizes 193 countries. There's more to the world than the US and its immediate neighbors.
I can't find the picture now, but I recall walking through TPE - oh, back when it was called Chiang Kai-shek Int'l - and spotting an ad showing a multi-person bike with people from a variety of backgrounds on it, though one seat was obviously empty. Empty since 1971...
BuildingMyBento is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.