Travelers Rights & CBP Entering Back into US.

[polonius]

Originally Posted by Firebug4

I have tried very hard to be civil. I have told you that I think that you are bias about this topic and a little closed minded concerning it. I have not called you a racist, or any other name for that matter. I have not insulted you in anyway. You don't know me so I would appreciate if you would refrain from trying to paint me as a racist or a bigot because I don't agree with you.

FB

Nobody is painting you as a racist because they disagree. You are being referred to as a racist because 1) you have advocated that it is OK for CBP agents to use their "prior experience" in deciding who to examine more closely and 2) you have made blatantly anti-immigrant statements.

Using "prior experience" to make judgements about someone you have never met is the definition of "PREjudice"; i.e., the guy I caught here last week smuggling heroin was a single male travelling alone, so I'm going to pull this single male aside for a secondary. Pretty soon you're only pulling those guys aside, and, amazingly, you look back at your stats for the previous month, and surprise, surprise! All of your heroin busts were for single males travelling alone! Once again, for ANYONE (and particularly for anyone in a position of authority to do so in an official capacity) to pull me aside because I have race, gender or other characteristics that resemble other people they have caught is deeply offensive, so please stop defending and advocating it if you don't want to be called a racist.

It is no coincidence that so-called "anti-immigrant" parties are also those that espouse racial intolerance, have memberships that are behind incidents like desecration of mosques, synagogues and cemeteries and violent attacks on foreigners, that have party symbols that evoke the swastika, and that promote white supremacist views. You've made your sympathies with such groups clear, so don't complain if you get labelled a racist.

[Yaatri]

Originally Posted by polonius

Nobody is painting you as a racist because they disagree. You are being referred to as a racist because 1) you have advocated that it is OK for CBP agents to use their "prior experience" in deciding who to examine more closely and 2) you have made blatantly anti-immigrant statements.

Using "prior experience" to make judgements about someone you have never met is the definition of "PREjudice"; i.e., the guy I caught here last week smuggling heroin was a single male travelling alone, so I'm going to pull this single male aside for a secondary. Pretty soon you're only pulling those guys aside, and, amazingly, you look back at your stats for the previous month, and surprise, surprise! All of your heroin busts were for single males travelling alone! Once again, for ANYONE (and particularly for anyone in a position of authority to do so in an official capacity) to pull me aside because I have race, gender or other characteristics that resemble other people they have caught is deeply offensive, so please stop defending and advocating it if you don't want to be called a racist.

It is no coincidence that so-called "anti-immigrant" parties are also those that espouse racial intolerance, have memberships that are behind incidents like desecration of mosques, synagogues and cemeteries and violent attacks on foreigners, that have party symbols that evoke the swastika, and that promote white supremacist views. You've made your sympathies with such groups clear, so don't complain if you get labelled a racist.

If all married males travelling alone (regardless of their colour) from a country known for drug trafficking were pulled out routinely, it would be one thing. How countries are know for drug trafficking? There were a few other people who travelled from Turkey to DTW on their way to other destinations. One of them was sitting across the aisle from me on the AMS-DTW flight. Only I was pulled out. It was not the case of using past experience, but using the cover of experience to harass whose looks they couldn't stand.
I have asked why isn't every male travelling alone from, South East Asia pulled if drug trafficking is a concern. On Flights from SE Asia I have only seen Asians, Blacks and Middle Eastern people pulled. The man refuses to ponder that, probably because he is convinced beyond any doubt that the CBP officers acted appropriately. On the other hand his doubts about the veracity of my story stemmed from the fact that CBP was not known as CBP in 1998.

[Yaatri]

Originally Posted by Yaatri

If one is blind, partisan, racist or a bigot, one will find any excuse to justify.

Originally Posted by Yaatri

It's AMAZING the extent to which some people will go in order to justify their world view reflected in actions of those they identify with.

Originally Posted by GUWonder

Yes, but rather than "amazing" it's expected and way too ordinary.

Of course you are right. One bigot must necessarily support another. You know what they say. Birds of a feather............What I find amazing is the resistance to reason. You lead them to the truth. shine a light on it, but they stubbornly shut their eyes tight.

Originally Posted by GUWonder

Old habits -- bigotry in particular -- die hard and are subject to taking on a new life energized by a diet of Fox-like "meat".

You missed some other popular ingredients.
Patriotism.
Threat to our way of life.
Threat to our freedoms.
Fear of the unknown in bad economic times.
And the urge to blame "ferners" for their problems.

[Firebug4]

Originally Posted by Yaatri

There are no contradictions between my answers to the two CBP ahents (or whatever you call them). I never said there was any contradiction between the two officers. You have been trying very very hard to justify bigotry. You are who you are. You have tried to invent issues that were not even relevant. Bringing up legality of my status, was an attempt to justify their bigotry. What makes you think I could be an illegal alien? Because the name I use here on FT sounds strange to you? What is the relevance of my admissibility? Customs has nothing to do with admissibility. Whether I was a U.S. citizen or not,. by the time I arrived in baggage claim area, that issue was resolved. This is nothing but clearly a case of allowing one's bigotry drive one's behaviour.
The choice is yours. You can help us all live in better world by calling a racist brother officer racist or you can close ranks and defend them.

It's true I don;t know you. You don't know me either. You have made determination about me based on your preconceived notions of who might be a drug smuggler. And I suppose telling me to stop whining is a great honour bestowed upon me. I am not the only one who thinks that the officer(s) behaved inappropriately. If they believe that the offcier was a racist, what do you think the conclusion will be about those who seek to justify the racist behaviour even if they have to introduced conjecture into the situation. I believe a person justifies bigotry because their world view is the same as that of the bigot. There is something that strikes a resonance. I am sorry if that points a finger at you. I am simply following logic and reason.

You have called me close minded. I am close minded because I do not agree with your conclusions. There premise was wrong from begining to end. The more they probed hoping to find something the more evidence they had to entertain the possibility of me being innocent. But it never entered their mind. Not once. That is certainly prejudice, bigotry and racism

I brought up status because I thought you were dealing with the customs and border protection of today. Where the officers do both functions. You neglected to tell anyone that this occurred twelve years ago until about 7 pages into the thread. If it happened twelve years ago in baggage claim and the officers were wearing blue shirts not white then yes it was Customs and I would say yes they didn't believe your story. They thought you were a smuggler.

I don't believe that they thought you were a smuggler because of your race I thing it was because of your lousy story. I also think that they believed that you were an internal carrier. You still have not said why you think they picked you to begin with.

I also think that you are exactly what you are accusing them of being a bigot and a racist because you have not entertained for one second that it was your conflicting answers that caused the problem. You think you know for a fact why it happened and won't stop for a second to think you may be wrong. That seems to fit your definition of a bigot and a racist. It works both ways you know.

Unfortunately for you the officer acted appropriately and did his job. You don't want to even try to understand the problem had nothing to do with your race. It had everything to do with your answers and you can't break from your unbending preconceived perceptions to see you might be wrong. Sound familiar? You sir are the pot calling the kettle black. You are every bit of the bigot and racist you a calling the officers. I tried to give you a little insight on how the system works you chose to ignore it so be it I tried. I give up continue to live in your perception of the world of your making. I will chose to ignore your ignorant views as well.

FB

[GUWonder]

Originally Posted by Yaatri

Of course you are right. One bigot must necessarily support another. You know what they say. Birds of a feather............What I find amazing is the resistance to reason. You lead them to the truth. shine a light on it, but they stubbornly shut their eyes tight.

You missed some other popular ingredients.
Patriotism.
Threat to our way of life.
Threat to our freedoms.
Fear of the unknown in bad economic times.
And the urge to blame "ferners" for their problems.

That's all part of "meat" sourced from Fox and the like. You know what they say: we are what we eat. Same goes for CBP and its predecessor agencies and functional equivalents eating way too much of that kind of "meat".

[Cheerfulflyer]

Originally Posted by yyzvoyageur

The OP wanted to start a thread about your rights, etc. when dealing with CBP. What about preclearance areas in other countries? In Canada these areas are governed by the Preclearance Act. The following quote from the Act should be enough to generate some debate.

Thanks for this! I am wondering if something like this exists in US too. Anyone know? Please post responsibly; not a thread to bash others. Think how what you write can be abundantly helpful to readers. If it is not, then let it go. Thanks!

[GUWonder]

Originally Posted by Cheerfulflyer

Thanks for this! I am wondering if something like this exists in US too. Anyone know? Please post responsibly; not a thread to bash others. Think how what you write can be abundantly helpful to readers. If it is not, then let it go. Thanks!

The US government has not made sure to allow foreign countries to conduct immigration-related pre-clearance in US airports such that -- prior to arrival by flight to such a foreign country -- immigration formalities would be considered finalized in the territorial US for such a foreign country by the foreign country's own immigration control agency.

Even Canada -- which has the greatest amount of immigration-releated preclearance of passengers on all common carrier flights bound to the US -- doesn't have immigration-related preclearance facilities at US airports for the same kind of service for passengers on common carrier flights to Canada. If Canada doesn't get it, I wouldn't expect other countries to get it.

[DillMan]

Originally Posted by Firebug4

Exactly, and by the transcript you posted you were giving those signals. Sometimes, people are just generally nervous when going through the process which will generate those signals.

Ahh yes, the "signals". And the readers of these signals are people who barely made it through high school, can't get a job as a real law enforcement officer and so grind around CBP until their pension kicks in. Oh wait, I forgot, they also had a 2 day training course on reading "signals".

They're almost like ninjas aren't they? Super signal reading ninjas.

Those have to be sorted through by asking you guessed it more questions. They can't read minds. There was nothing racist in your exchange with CBP. They were concerned about your travel pattern. The answers you gave did nothing to clarify the pattern to their satisfaction. You are bent out of shape because you feel they should not have chose you to question. The reality is you have no idea why they chose you. It could just have been your unlucky day.

I will continue to come back to US law because that is the parameters that we all must live under. If you don't like the laws then try to change them. You must satisfy the officer that you are admissible to the United States I might suggest that you become better at doing that. You continue to talk about attitude and bias of the officers. You have shown that you have quite a bit of bias and attitude yourself. I wonder how much of that is evident when you are speaking to the officers?

You seem to be hung up of the fact that the search didn't produce any contraband. Did you ever consider the officers, not one but two officers thought perhaps YOU personally were the problem? Meaning they were not comfortable that you were telling the truth about something maybe citizenship or the purpose of your trip perhaps.

Like I said you may not like it but you have not come up with anything better. The way you want it to be will not stop the criminals, illegal aliens, drugs, ag pests or anything that could cross the border. It will never be that way. US Customs is a law enforcement agency. They are not there to be a welcome wagon. They are there to enforce the Customs and Immigration laws of the United States. In the end it really doesn't matter they will continue to do their job.

Well that's just too bad. I'd much rather live in a country that didn't manage to humiliate me every time an overseas friend visits and in turn, I could tolerate a bit more risk.

My business partner is a Palestinian-American. His only extremist leanings relate to his preference for BMWs over Mercedes. Sadly, though, he and I have to book separate tickets when traveling overseas (well, technically back from overseas) to make sure at least I make it to our meetings. Pathetic.

Probably our best family friends are Turkish. OH MY GOD THEY ARE ALMOST BROWN, ALERT!!! We visit them at least a couple times a year but they also visit us at least once a year. Every time....EVERY SINGLE TIME....since 9/11 they get secondary screening at JFK and we end up missing our evening plans that day. Every. Single. Time. The super annoying part, for them, is being asked about religious affiliation. They've responded each time that they are strong Turkish Nationalists, i.e. they are bleeding secularists.

Amazingly, and this statement needed its own paragraph for emphasis, the last time they came to the US and made this statement during their secondary, the idiot CBP officer didn't know the meaning of the word secular. Wait a minute, hold the phone please, you are in charge of screening out the horrible terrorists (brown people) and you don't know what a secularist is? Wow, just wow.

If it bothers you so much why don't you stop whining on a travel board and get involved. Call your Congressman or Senator. Spend time finding out how the process really works instead of guessing and listening to half baked opinions(including mine) on some message board. You may be really surprised but what you learn or maybe not. You must want to really know how it works though. So far you have shown yourself to just as closed minded as the officers you accuse of being racist

FB



That was the point the US couldn't support the increase of a billion people and I don't think that Qatar could support the increase of 16 million people in that time frame either.



I just noticed this while reading through the thread. You are using an example that occurred in 1998. Twelve years ago Customs and Border Protection didn't even exist as an agency. Policy probably has changed 5 or 6 times since then.

So you are American Indian then, right? Your ancestors didn't participate in a massive population boon in North America, right?

[ehasbrouck]

With the usual disclaimer that i am not a lawyer, some notes on a couple of aspects of the applicable laws that haven't yet been mentioned:

Under Article 12 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as discussed here, U.S. citizens have a near-absolute right to re-enter the USA, and anyone regardless of citizenship has a right to leave any country including the U.S..

Of course anyone (including CBP) can *ask* almost anything, and U.S. case law (most of whihc doesn't consider the ICCPR) gives them the right to conduct almost any kind of search of your person and the property you are seeking to transport across the border. But once they are done with the search -- after they have left you in a dry cell for a couple of days for all of the contents of your intestines to be excreted so they can inspect it for contraband -- they have to let you proceed unless they have cause to arrest you or cause to suspect that you aren't a citizen.

If you claim to be a U.S. citizen, the only questions relevant to your admissibility would be questions about your citizenship. I'm not sure what the case law is, if any, on whether a verbal claim to be a citizen is prima facie evidence of citizenship sufficient to require them to admit you, once they are done searching you, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, or what evidence would be sufficient to cast your citizenship in doubt if you decline to answer further questions or present additional evidence of citizenship.

As for what information they may have or use as the basis for their decisions: that's for them to know, and you not to find out. Last week the DHS promulgated new final rules purporting to exempt much of the PNR and other date in the "Automated Targeting System" and "Border Crossing Information" databases from the Privacy Act. You can still ask for your files, but they now claim they don't have to show much of them to you. In practice, that may not make much difference, since they have consistently ignored the Privacy act and have processed requests for ATS records under FOIA, invoking FOIA disclosure exemptions, even when the requests have been made solely under the Privacy Act. And they have yet to act on any Privacy Act appeals of their withholdings, even those that have been pending for years.

Almost anything can be included by an airline or travel company in a PNR, and thus passed on to the CBP and used as an input to the "cleared/not cleared/inhibited" and/or secondary screening decision-making black boxes. Now the CBP claims the right to act on any such commercial data in PNR's -- free text derogatory remarks from the gate agent who took a dislike to you, airline or other commercial blacklists, credit scores, risk ratings from commercial security services, anything they like -- while keeping it secret from you.

[carolinaflyr]

Having followed this thread for about 9-10 pages, I'd observe (as a 50 some white guy - US citizen) that I have been secondaried (while traveling with my wife) more than once while returning from Southeast Asia, as have some relatives who also made the mistake of traveling to Southeast Asia. One genius with CBP at DFW even asked "Why would anyone go to Cambodia." (I'm betting that Houston might have been his longest trip). I finally asked about this and was told that Thailand and Cambodia are "countries of interest." That may be stupid and ignorant, or may be based in fact, but I do not think the well-documented attention given to those returning from that part of the world is based on appearance, nor perhaps, even nationality of origin / passport, etc.

As a teen traveling alone, reentering in San Juan in the 1970s, I had the pleasure of being asked to disrobe and be fully searched - probably for no reason other than being 17 or 18 and traveling by myself (I'd been on vacation with my family but had to return a day earlier than them).

But I do not doubt that these days a "middle eastern appearance," whatever that is, and an itinerary with a stop in some country of interest, will dramatically improve your odds of a secondary. Still, CBP seems to pick on plenty of us who are of pretty conventional names, complexions and backgrounds.

My feeling is if they want to search me, search me, but I have almost no patience with the cop-show questioning. I have a us passport and I'm real easy to google, and I am in about 3 dozen databases, at least. So let's skip the identity charade, go ahead and search me and my bags if you want, because I have way better things to do than talk to CBP. I don't lke being secondaried but with some destinations or other things its probably just part of life. (And as a lawyer I know they can search anyone for anything at the border, and don't need reasonable anything or probable whatever)

Blame Congress for the war on drugs at all costs, blame Congress for sending the message that it's better that CBP harass 1000 travelers than to miss one bag of white powder, and interrogate 2000 more rather than miss one who might be up to no good. If Congress mandated discharge for being rude we'd have a polite CBP. But they don't.

I've interacted with some and seen a lot more of CBP and predecessors in action. Most seem to do their jobs. I'm polite and pleasant as long as they are to me, (most are) and will at first try to correct their bad behavior when they are rude, before copping an attitude in return. A few seem to be on a mission, are rude as all get out, and ought to be told to find another line of work (but I'm not holding my breath). They are poor ambassadors for the United States, and ought not be in any position requiring judgment, especially one that can profoundly affect others with little recourse. The problem seems not to be that CBP is systemically bad, but that they have some bad apples on power trips (as well as some who because of lack of education or poor upbringing are just plain rude people), and the organization really does not seem to be interested in weeding out the bad ones.

One interesting question from a few back - is an oral declaration of US citizenship sufficient to establish prima-facie admissibility with no documentation? Effective 1-31-2008 DHS said not. But, if someone has 14th amendment citizenship (by birth) then neither Congress nor the executive can abrogate that citizenship and the things incident to it (like entry into the USA). I suspect we will see a test case on this issue one day - can a US citizen be denied entry because they fail to produce government-demanded paperwork? Let's hope the answer is no. (But in the meantime, because I like making my connecting flights, I'll still carry my RFID passport).

[Cheerfulflyer]

Originally Posted by carolinaflyr

Still, CBP seems to pick on plenty of us who are of pretty conventional names, complexions and backgrounds.
My feeling is if they want to search me, search me, but I have almost no patience with the cop-show questioning.
If Congress mandated discharge for being rude we'd have a polite CBP. But they don't.
A few seem to be on a mission, are rude as all get out, and ought to be told to find another line of work (but I'm not holding my breath). They are poor ambassadors for the United States, and ought not be in any position requiring judgment, especially one that can profoundly affect others with little recourse. The problem seems not to be that CBP is systemically bad, but that they have some bad apples on power trips (as well as some who because of lack of education or poor upbringing are just plain rude people), and the organization really does not seem to be interested in weeding out the bad ones.

Thanks for an awesome contribution carolinaflyr. I agree with you that CBP does not let it easy on the " pretty conventional names, complexions and backgrounds". Thus this thread is applicable to everyone who travels internationally and returns to US.
Second, I also agree that the main issue here is how to protect ourselves from the rude CBP officers. Can we for example show them the CBP publication that guarantees a "courteous and professional treatment". Would it help for example if one asked for the supervisor? In what ways can we minimize illtreatment from CBP and protect ourselves from the bad-apples that most of us had the displeasure to meet.

[slothy]

It looks like I'm a little late to this thread, but I'll go ahead and share my recent experience with CBP at EWR. After passport control harassed me about whether I'd lost weight (I'm 99.9% sure this was a behavioral "prompting" question, as I'm quite certain that it's not humanly possible to make inferences about my weight based on a low-resolution 2x2 passport photo - and while vital statistics might be in my state's driver license database, he asked this before he started typing), I declined to answer questions not directly related to the issue of citizenship. This, predictably, earned me a trip to secondary, where I was quickly (within 2 minutes) called into a back room for a chat with good cop Officer Emer. He started my interview by plainly stating that he knew I was born in Washington State. He asked me why I didn't answer questions "on the line," to which I explained that I felt that I had been talked into accidently making contradictory statements at passport control in the past and that I didn’t like it when my government uses my $7.00 US Immigration Service Fee to lure me into committing a felony. He responded with a lecture about how America is under threat of domestic terrorism and it's CBP's responsibility to keep America safe, which can only be achieved through behavioral interviewing. I was informed that passport control is just like being arrested in that you have to tell an officer anything and everything they want to know, including self-incriminating information; he was unaware of the entire concept of Miranda rights and wasn’t particularly interested in my attempt to educate him. I stopped talking when he asked me my occupation, he escorted me back into a waiting room with about 30 South Asians and a couple Europeans, and after 15 minutes Emer called me up to a raised podium with a fancy DHS seal in front of the room for another interview with another officer present. I remained recalcitrant at first, but they told me they would hold me for the full two hours before protocol would allow me to contact the outside world if I didn't cooperate. The woman with Emer also said "I'm wondering if we should be contacting another agency," which I think she was only saying because I was within earshot - I've heard of census takers making similar comments, even though Census has never actually taken anyone to court. At that point I folded, four or five questions about my occupation and my travels ensued (they were particularly interested in a 2 night side trip to Marrakesh for some reason, and I got a nasty "are you saying that you lied on your passport application?" when I simply confirmed that they were indeed accurately reading off the information I put down on my passport application and my airline PNR).

They gave me a secondary at Customs, where I was asked the exact same questions and, after struggling to find the "on" button, a young man who seems to have never left the tri-state area examined the photos on my camera and asked if I had any from my current trip as he was reviewing pictures taken the previous day - I suspect he simply had no idea what Madrid actually looks like. He also said that I'm not deserving of US citizenship if I don't support CBP's "fishing" mission, although he conceded that the US is "stuck with me." I walked out with a very conflicted feeling; while it did feel good to make it to the Starbucks on the other side, in hindsight I wish I had held my ground for the full two hours, as my passport is now likely ineligible for GE and I ultimately failed to take a stand for civil liberties.

In the end, I don't know what lessons were learned... in the future I will ask them to be very specific about what crime they have reasonable suspicion of during questioning once citizenship is established (or at least they're supposed to have reasonable suspicion, according to Ch. 12 Sec. 1 of their field manual, which you can easily find through Google - I'll keep a printout with me next time) so that I can deny those charges directly, and I'll definitely take them up on their offer to complete a comment card every time. I will probably schedule my return trips so I can afford to wait a full two hours in immigration secondary without significant interruption, since they basically acknowledged that that's the worst they would do. I also submitted a FOIA request for my inspection reports and anything they might have typed into IBIS, which they received at headquarters on February 1st according to USPS – I’m still waiting on a response (delayed because bureaucrats can’t work in the snow, of course).

[mbstone]

Originally Posted by ehasbrouck

With the usual disclaimer that I AM NOT A LAWYER, some notes on a couple of aspects of the applicable laws that haven't yet been mentioned:

Under Article 12 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as discussed here, U.S. citizens have a near-absolute right to re-enter the USA, and anyone regardless of citizenship has a right to leave any country including the U.S..

Of course anyone (including CBP) can *ask* almost anything, and U.S. case law (most of whihc doesn't consider the ICCPR) gives them the right to conduct almost any kind of search of your person and the property you are seeking to transport across the border. But once they are done with the search -- after they have left you in a dry cell for a couple of days for all of the contents of your intestines to be excreted so they can inspect it for contraband -- they have to let you proceed unless they have cause to arrest you or cause to suspect that you aren't a citizen.

If you claim to be a U.S. citizen, the only questions relevant to your admissibility would be questions about your citizenship. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE CASE LAW IS, if any, on whether a verbal claim to be a citizen is prima facie evidence of citizenship sufficient to require them to admit you, once they are done searching you, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, or what evidence would be sufficient to cast your citizenship in doubt if you decline to answer further questions or present additional evidence of citizenship.

As for what information they may have or use as the basis for their decisions: that's for them to know, and you not to find out. Last week the DHS promulgated new final rules purporting to exempt much of the PNR and other date in the "Automated Targeting System" and "Border Crossing Information" databases from the Privacy Act. You can still ask for your files, but they now claim they don't have to show much of them to you. In practice, that may not make much difference, since they have consistently ignored the Privacy act and have processed requests for ATS records under FOIA, invoking FOIA disclosure exemptions, even when the requests have been made solely under the Privacy Act. And they have yet to act on any Privacy Act appeals of their withholdings, even those that have been pending for years.

Almost anything can be included by an airline or travel company in a PNR, and thus passed on to the CBP and used as an input to the "cleared/not cleared/inhibited" and/or secondary screening decision-making black boxes. Now the CBP claims the right to act on any such commercial data in PNR's -- free text derogatory remarks from the gate agent who took a dislike to you, airline or other commercial blacklists, credit scores, risk ratings from commercial security services, anything they like -- while keeping it secret from you.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by slothy

It looks like I'm a little late to this thread, but I'll go ahead and share my recent experience with CBP at EWR. After passport control harassed me about whether I'd lost weight (I'm 99.9% sure this was a behavioral "prompting" question, as I'm quite certain that it's not humanly possible to make inferences about my weight based on a low-resolution 2x2 passport photo - and while vital statistics might be in my state's driver license database, he asked this before he started typing), I declined to answer questions not directly related to the issue of citizenship.

That question is very strange indeed.

Originally Posted by slothy

This, predictably, earned me a trip to secondary, where I was quickly (within 2 minutes) called into a back room for a chat with good cop Officer Emer. He started my interview by plainly stating that he knew I was born in Washington State. He asked me why I didn't answer questions "on the line," to which I explained that I felt that I had been talked into accidently making contradictory statements at passport control in the past and that I didn’t like it when my government uses my $7.00 US Immigration Service Fee to lure me into committing a felony.

What were you "contradictory statements" were you "talked into accidently making" in the past?

Originally Posted by slothy

He responded with a lecture about how America is under threat of domestic terrorism and it's CBP's responsibility to keep America safe, which can only be achieved through behavioral interviewing.

That's a crock (the second part).

Originally Posted by slothy

I was informed that passport control is just like being arrested in that you have to tell an officer anything and everything they want to know, including self-incriminating information; he was unaware of the entire concept of Miranda rights and wasn’t particularly interested in my attempt to educate him.

That makes no sense; as an LEO, he should know the rules.

Originally Posted by slothy

I walked out with a very conflicted feeling; while it did feel good to make it to the Starbucks on the other side, in hindsight I wish I had held my ground for the full two hours, as my passport is now likely ineligible for GE and I ultimately failed to take a stand for civil liberties.

Looks like it was a gross failure; you cracked under "pressure" thereby failing to make a stand for civil liberties (which really don't exist at the border) and might have made yourself ineligible for GE. Not sure what you were trying to prove-- but if you can't answer simple questions for CBP upon entry, what would you do at a GE interview?

[Yaatri]

Originally Posted by Cheerfulflyer

Thanks for this! I am wondering if something like this exists in US too. Anyone know? Please post responsibly; not a thread to bash others. Think how what you write can be abundantly helpful to readers. If it is not, then let it go. Thanks!

NO attempt to slam here. You could have answered the question yourself if approach the question logically.
1. Have you ever taken a trip beyond the U.S.
2. The above question was asked for a reason. I have no doubt that you have travelled quite a bit including many international trips.
3. At the gateway airports, have you seen any set up any place seta aside where people could be processed for [re-clearance?
4. Had there been any pre-clearance facility for any country, you would see some ares set aside for that. For example, the U.S. pre-clearance facility in Canadian airports are quite visible.
5. Any pre-clearance facilities would have to be at the point of departure, so that a person could not mingle with the local population after having departed U.S. and pre-cleared for entry into another country.

The answer is "NO. There are no pre-clearance facilities for any countries in the U.S. " It's possible to have such facilities only very isolated cases only on a bilateral basis. For example the just the thought that pre-clerance facilities for a number of countries in the U.S. could be feasible would have to be discarded if one, tried to imagine pre-clearance facilities of five or ten countries at an airport.