volo

A personal development consultant from Singapore reports her experience with A "TSA" (probably CBP, misidentified as TSA) questioner at immigration on entry to the USA:

http://personalexcellence.co/blog/bullying/

2011-11-25 Amended this post to reflect very strong likelihood it was not TSA but Customs & Immigration that the original blogger encountered.

jkhuggins

While the article identifies the questioner as being from TSA, it seems clear from the article that the questioner was from CBP, not TSA.

RadioGirl

It's not the TSA that interviews people at immigration; that would be Customs and Border Protection (CBP). That doesn't detract from her (initial) point that she was treated badly by authorities when trying to enter the US, but let's blame the right people.

(And I couldn't read too much of the article - it's way too long.)

InkUnderNails

Agreed. It is similar to the treatment I have received more than once at the Canadian border. It does not make it right.

agehall

While his story sounds awful, I can't help but wondering if it was really the TSA? We like to blame everything on them, but IIRC, they are not handeling passengers entering the US - that would be immigration officers, right?

volo

I'm inclined to think the blogger misidentified her questioner as a TSA staffer rather than a Customs and Immigration staffer as well. I've been wondering if that might have been the case, since I usually see TSA only on departing the USA, not on entering it, but I was not 100% sure. I've modified the OP. Would like to modify thread title; not sure how.

alanR

Oh so typical - the CBP agent came to a conclusion based on nothing more than gut feeling, then tried to make the evidence fit it.

bluenotesro

Barbarians at the gate

And I'm not talking about the poor, hapless woman.

halls120

Exactly. These two sentences from the blog says it all.

That, in a nutshell, is what we've created in the law enforcement arm of the federal government - an attitude that fosters a disdain for the Constitution.

Global_Hi_Flyer

As I pointed out in another thread, some Federal employees are trained to never admit a mistake.

NotaCriminal

Once again, the upshot is that CBP/ICE's behavior cost the U.S. yet another visitor and potential tourism dollars. The author has debated about going home early, and also posted that unless it is employment or another compelling reason, she has no reason to return to the United States.

I've never been treated poorly by Immigration or Customs when flying into any number of countries in Europe. But all I hear from foreign visitors lately is just how poorly they are treated coming into the country. I hope the U.S. Government is okay with the loss of tax dollars and economy stimulation.

Global_Hi_Flyer

"Welcome to America. Now get the hell out".

etch5895

Been doing some thinking about this and how to make the US border seem more friendly to foreign visitors.

First, I'm not sure why our immigrations officers have to be actual armed LEOs. I can see having a few armed officers on hand, but not doing the questioning. Young testosterone filled males with guns fresh out of the academy do not need to be working the booths at the airports. These people should be older, more worldly, possibly retired schoolteachers. The young guns fresh out of the academy can work the southern border until they've grown up a bit.

Second, anyone working the immigration booths should first do a round-the-world trip and experience how other nations do it. Not saying that all other countries do it right and we do it wrong, but it would be nice to have some perspective.

Third, any agent who accumulates 'rudeness' complaints should be able to be fired on the spot. All interactions with incoming passengers should be recorded and available as evidence to both the government and the traveler.

Lastly, there should be at each port an appellate authority who can overrule the decision of any agent. Also, it should be illegal for the immigration agent to hold or question any passenger beyond 15 minutes without being able to articulate some sort of reasonable suspicion to a magistrate (or said appellate authority).

nachtnebel

^yes, and that is why there is a large and growing association of county sherrifs actively limiting federal law enforcement in their jurisdictions. Because these feds have ceased following the constitution.

InkUnderNails

If she told CBP that she was a consultant, then that sets off a series of alarms. It is the same treatment I get as a consultant entering Canada. It is the treatment that Canadians get entering the US as consultants.

This started concurrent with the current long term economic slow down.

There was the alleged abuse of the NAFTA exclusion for business consultants moving between Canada and the US. (I know Singapore is not covered by NAFTA, but hang with me.) It was suspected that people were entering the US from Canada to do temporary consulting work when they were possibly entering for work not covered by the NAFTA agreement and were using the consultant exclusion to accomplish that. Without adequate proof of consulting work, our CBP would turn them back at the border.

The Canadians were obviously miffed and Canadian border control started sending back US citizens entering Canada under the NAFTA exemption. I was turned back at the Peace Bridge and had to return home. The border agent insisted that I was not a consultant even though my record showed that I had been working repeatedly in Canada for years under the NAFTA exclusion. I had to get extra paperwork, called a Labor Market Opinion (LMO). Once completed, it allowed me to enter Canada to work a two-day consulting job after purchasing a work permit for $150 CAD. For another job in Canada a few months later I was assured by my client that they never had to request an LMO and to show up at the airport and request the NAFTA exclusion. I was again turned away at the border. The reason was "If she said you were not a consultant and needed and LMO, then you still need an LMO."

On my most recent trip, even with the properly approved LMO, I received a more intense interrogation than I have had since getting the LMO and getting the work permit. I suspect, but have no proof whatsoever, that there has been a stepped up emphasis once again on consultants.

The story related by the OP as having occurred to the consultant from Singapore is consistent with the what has occurred when crossing to and from Canada as a consultant. If she said she was a consultant and was visiting for nearly three months, it is not surprising that she got the heavy hand. That is a long time to just be visiting and a typical amount of time for a consulting project. Right or wrong, our CBP is very suspicious of anyone that says they are a consultant.

Is it right? I do not think so. By every definition of consultant except that currently applied at the Canadian border, I am one. That application applies in both directions. The person from the article was just a visitor and attending a conference. Saying this automatically creates suspicion and leads to greater scrutiny.