I think your reaction is quite rational. If you need to visit a country for non-leisure reasons you have to endure unpleasant experiences but, like you, I would be disinclined to choose to revisit somewhere where I was treated badly.

I make an exception for France though :D .

I have had this kind of thing happen in multiple countries over the last 30 years. It happens. Concentration of more in some places than others, but it can happen anywhere really.

Rule #1 when crossing a border into/out of a country you are not a citizen.....you are not a citizen. Be careful. There is usually no appeals process (depends on country of course) and what happens to you that one time can haunt you for years to come.

If they want to take every electronic item you have, for an undefined period, they can
If they want to ban you from entering because they don't like your hair, they can
If they want to submit you to a cavity search, because they don't like your hair, they can

Do not EVER make a fuss at a border crossing unless you are a) a citizen or b) you don't mind if any of the previously mentioned things happen.

my point, and the OP's experience was based on a single incident of rude behavior. I've been treated rudely all over the world, and I continue to travel all over the world. If there was a place that consistently treated me rudely, I would probably take my business elsewhere, but the difference is once vs. a pattern of behavior.

of course. and neither is mine.

Ok. Get rid of "puke" or "idiot" if you wish. Or even "low level" if that bothers you. The fact remains that no person should have the discretionary power they have to strip search, detain, send to a hospital, or eject from the country based on their whim, no matter how that can be camouflaged. Coupled to this power is their status as federal, which means in practical terms they are much, much further beyond the law, beyond oversight, and redress than even city police officers, who have plenty of immunity.

They are human beings. Who cares how "well trained" they are. They are still human beings therefore they can and they will and they do abuse power. Training has no effect on the character, nor does it impart a halo which will transform the person being trained. Based on this and many other threads, obviously.

"Failing to meet the standards" sounds so benign. The result, in fact, of this "failure to meet standards" is that undeserving people are strip searched maliciously or out of sexual perversion as in Detroit, sexually fondled, or beaten to death, as in the case of Anastasio Rojas in San Diego, or shot to death, as a young mother of five (Monique Alvarado) was by agent Tackett, also in San Diego.

Hundreds of CBP agents have been incarcerated for serious crimes or are facing charges since the year 2000. Quite possibly due to the huge increases in the the numbers of CBP agents started by Bush II, many of whom were not properly vetted due to the mandate of increasing numbers rapidly.

I bring this up because, as you say, all these persons were well trained. Yet training did not change who they are. At base, human beings who can and do act wrongly. Therefore, CBP agents should not have the power they have. They should have ONLY the powers of a city LEO, and there should be a great deal more oversight.

The fact that many CBP agents don't abuse their power is of little comfort to me when I am face to face with one who does.

+1000 ^

I've never had anything approaching a pleasant experience while entering the USA (going back to pre 911 days) - at the best veiled hostility -a snarled "I'm worried about you leaving at the end of your trip", at the worst shouting and threatening behaviour. Q. "Why are you so nervous if you have nothing to hide?" A. "Because I'm half way around the world from home and a man with a gun is going through my belongings".

After this sort of thing happened to me just once too often, I decided that my holiday time and dollars are better spent in other places. Now I spend my limited leisure time in places like Asia or Europe. It's a shame because there's much I enjoyed about the USA, and Hawaii used to be a nice short and cheap trip for me, but I really just can't be arsed going there again.

I would suggest the OP has learnt the lesson far more quickly than I did, but then her experience this time was worse than any of mine.

I would not EVER make a fuss at a border crossing even as a citizen. In general (and I emphasize, 'in general', my experiences with US CBP have been harsher than my experiences anywhere else in the world. I don't know about other border crossings, but a US citizen functionally has zero rights until he/she has actually been re-admitted to the US. They can do anything and everything short of actually denying you entry.

Nope. The rudest customs and immigration people are equally from the five major English speaking countries: UK, US, NZ, CA, and AU. It is a cultural think inherited from England.

and the nicest customs and immigration people are from non-English speaking countries.

Germany is very quick and efficient. All they do is match your fact to your passport, stamp and then you can go. If you are arriving with hand luggage only, you can simply walk out of the airport before the check bags arrive at the baggage claim as the customs area isn't typically manned until passengers start walking out with their checked bags.

Japan is also quick and efficient. No questions asked.
However, one time I forgot to fill out a Customs form (they have separate forms for immigration and customs), the officer simply told me to go to the counter to fill out the form. No barking and yelling like you would see at the customs exits of the US airports.

Returning to my own country - the passport control has absolutly no discretion to deny me entry. Of course if there is reason to suspect that the passport/ID is fake (or not mine) they can and do make further checks. In normal situations though returning (to any of the EU countries) the most one may expect "Good morning!" and "Thanks" if the guards feel talkative.

Customs is similar - I was stopped twice in 20 years, politely asking a few qusetions and once asking me to open my carryon. Of course, if I carried something illegal and got caught, they can and will detain me - but not deny entry (on the contrary :))

As for Japan - the customs (not border guards) usually ask "How long are you staying?" or "What is the reason of your trip?" In 15 years they asked me once to open my bag.

As for the other end of the political spectrum:

Teheran airport (!) - arriving without visa (hoping for VOA) resulted in a 20 minutes wait, 2-3 polite questions about the reason of my trip (tourism suffice) and the visa was issued - after that no questions whatsoever by border guards or customs.

Here a trip through customs is fairly common for us but it's a matter of agricultural inspection, they're worried about food (the pests it may carry), not drugs.

I went to Japan six weeks ago. The airport people were totally polite, but my bag did get searched. If I remember correctly, I was also fingerprinted.

And that's why Japan is a no-go for me. I refuse to be treated like a criminal on entry to spend money in a country.

Feel sorry for the way the OP was mistreated, despite having everything in order. How much more stupid can the CBP get. How the eff do they expect someone from another country to completely know their immigration screening levels?

And isn't a refusal of admission to the country, to a foreign national, be supposed to be verified and/or authorized by a supervisor? I was under the impression that the officers must consult their supervisors for sending someone back(denying admission), or at least, consult some senior colleague or whatever. Or are they totally free to do whatever and unstoppable? Then the complaints process and the department that handles such is useless because by then the pax has already faced the situation and officer got away with it. Why would it bring any change to CBP attitudes anyway?

As far as those saying that this is a sort of one-off experience, nobody can really guarantee that the OP and her husband will not be sent off to secondary again the next time they try to visit the US and not be placed in a similar scenario. I would assume that the visa in his passport would again trigger a secondary inspection........

Isn't it like, once sent to secondary, for sure its next time too. Because nobody bothers to clean up all the .... in the cbp computer systems/databases?

If this sort of things are happening to people from visa-exempt nations, can you imagine what it must be for people from Muslim world or other 3rd world countries? Must be a hell of an experience.

After 9/11 these "anglo" countries (US, UK,Canada,Aus and NZ) have all gone to the extremes for rude attitudes. While the sense of entitlements and stupidity keeps rising.

Unfortunate that Canadian CBSA is also a big part of it, doesn't matter whether its the liberals or the conservative parties in power. Hopefully the entry of diverse nationalities in the cbsa will change the attitudes a bit in favour of the pax.

At a time when (a) federal government immigration enforcement costs more than 10 times the amount spent on all other federal law enforcement, and (b) most of the "immigration enforcement" is directed primarily at persons perceived as "non-European", is it really any surprise that negative approaches toward "non-Europeans" (regardless of citizenship) is indicated and perpetuated?

Isn't the OP's husband from the US?


I expect your hope will unfortunately not be realized. Ethnic minorities in these positions, particularly the younger ones, actually make matters worse on average as there is some kind of messed up thinking about coming across as "soft on their 'own'". Some call it the minority complex, but it seems to be largely an experience thing for those who came into the CBP functions post-9/11.

The older males of ethnic majority backgrounds in these positions in majority English-native-speaking countries are most frequently the ones least likely to make an unnecessary stink and more consistent. The difference may be experience-driven, but it will take a while to see how things turn out over the longer term.

CBP is in desperate need of far more effective internal and external monitoring of its employees by independent parties, but that seems to be an emblematic issue across DHS.

For all the criticism CBP gets and deserves, most of its employees are pretty good and do well enough by people at US POEs. The real problem is the lack of restrictions on DHS activity -- that is a White House/Congress-SupremeCourt-level problem.

As an American citizen with a NEXUS card, I was treated like dirt recently when returning to the United States from Canada.

Also remember, that that employment with the U.S. Federal Government is the job of last resort for the most unqualified employees who probably could not qualify for a job cleaning toilets at Walmart.

Hi All

Nope my husband is an Australian who was stupid as an 18 year old, which is what caused all the aggravation 30 years later. He is an engineer so its not like he looks like some drug induced, dread lock, yeehar that would make them suspicious. He grew up and hasnt touched drugs since his teens. How many people can prove they havent touched drugs in over 20 years? My husband can because of his job in mining. Every month he and all work mates are drug tested as a condition of employment due to safety.

They need to put something place between officers that says no they havent been in a little office being investigated, just have a special visa.
Then the officer could say look we need to go through your bag because of your special visa it would have been no problem at all. Knock yourself out we have nothing to hide. We both get all countries need to protect your borders ours included.

What got right up my nose was being threatend with being bounced back the minute we arrived. What did we do wrong? We spent a considerable amount of time and money to get the special visa to be on the safe side. I suppose we shouldnt have in retrospect because all it did was say I AM A DRUG RUNNING CRIMINAL! And due to the time past we probably could have gone straight through.

I am just frustrated these officers can treat people like dirt and there is no accountability. It would be interesting to know if they in fact could bounce us back? Under what grounds? Hubbie had a visa that said he could enter. To me he had more grounds to enter then i did as i enter under the waiver program. What would have happened if we asked for a supervisor due to her attitude. Would we have been hand cuffed and face planted into the floor?

Does your own country still insist on fingerprinting non-citizens who wish to enter? It's a while since I've entered, as I don't exactly feel like a welcomed guest when I visit there.

The one time president of my country refused visiting the USA on the same basis... (though as head of state he was of course exempt, but said that as long as his compatriots are fingerprinted, he refuses to go there)

Yes it does and I condemn that behavior. :mad:

With some substantial exceptions, non-citizens arriving at a US port of entry are fingerprinted. As a US citizen, I don't like it and I have appropriately criticized the practice when done by my government or by the government of others.

Are Canadians also fingerprinted at US POE's ?

I have been on at least two occasions. It's rare, but it happens.

There are stories of US citizens being fingerprinted at US POEs on occasion.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


Bitter much?

CBP employees on average tend to be at least much better educated than the average TSA employees. Not sure how great their job prospects are outside of the government, but the skillsets of those in these positions may not necessarily map over very well to a lot of higher skilled occupations in the non-governmental sector.

I have observed some of that happening to US citizens at US ports of entry. Sometimes it is a result of a misunderstanding, sometimes it's the result of a CBP employee trying to practice language skills, sometimes it's a result of CBP trying to catch someone about whom they may have a suspicion, and sometimes it's some combination of the previously mentioned. This far more frequently is attempted with US citizens who are ethnic minorities than with other US citizens.

Pretty much anybody using Global Entry...

I am a legal resident in USA. I have to give finger prints. Weird Yes.

I think the discussion was in the context of non-Global Entry entry.

Indeed most who are using Global Entry do the fingerprint thing.

[Global Entry enrollment is voluntary/optional and only for those who enroll with the CBP or some CBP partners.]

yes indeed, I do know that; I do it several times a month. I meant in the context of "normal" POEs.

I would be surprised if a CBP officer can simply send someone back simply because they "feel" like doing so. They may be allowed some discretion over this in the case of people on visa waivers but I'm pretty sure anyone with a visa who is denied entry has the right to a hearing before an immigration judge - the CBP simply cannot send that person back.

Regarding fingerprinting - currently all non US and non Candian citizens to the US (including green card holders) have to provide fingerprints upon entry. US Citizens do not need to so if asked I think you should be within your rights to refuse/ask to see a supervisor.

Rude behavior - I've seen some pretty rude behavior in some embassies (French and Belgium embassies in the UK come to mind) towards visa applicants. While not just limited to the CBP immigration officials in many countries seem to have behavior issues.

This is a significant and growing percentage of travelers, is it not? A key part of the US strategy to capture more international travelers and their economic activity. The recent case of Joel Helle shows the kind of damage that can be done by a lower level CBP agent:

Any power that can be abused, will be abused. An investigation into in the powers of the CBP and then further limitating them is long overdue.

I agree that in the case of visitors on VW it is definitely open to abuse since the terms of the VW program includes waiving your right to a hearing if denied entry - in other words it is all based on the assumption that the CBP officer is doing things correctly. I recall a story (cannot recall all the details so this is the best of how I recall the story) some years ago where a CBP agent in Oregon (I assume Portland airport) was denying lots of Japanese visitors (on VW) entry for no good reason and it finally came to light when he tried to deny some Japanese visitor who was an important person in some major Japanese corporation here on a business visit.

You would be pretty wrong then. This is the whole reason for requesting asylum, destroying your passport before arrival and other such tricks. This then effectively blocks them from sending you back. As long as the person in question has the necessary travel documents (a passport) a CBP officer can send them home. End of story. No appeal, no escalation, no nothing.

There have always been nasty, bitter clerks and ticket agents. All 9/11 did was empower them.

Mike

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...0aRCRD&CH=8cfr

I'm reproducing a couple of things for your benefit

INA: ACT 235 - INSPECTION BY IMMIGRATION OFFICERS; EXPEDITED REMOVAL OF INADMISSIBLE ARRIVING ALIENS; REFERRAL FOR HEARING

Section 2A - In general.-Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 240.

You can go through all of the text in the relevant CFRs but essentially all valid visa holders are entitled to due process and a hearing before an immigration judge. Non visa holders are not (expect for those claiming asylum) and that would include people traveling under VWP. In fact again there is a section on this and it does say the officers decision is final in the case of VWP - again this was something I had mentioned in my previous post.

Hmm. I really really hope you don't have anything to do with practicing law.

The State Department however says:
A visa is issued by a U.S. Embassy or Consulate. A visa entitles the holder to travel to the United States and apply for admission; it does not guarantee entry. An immigration inspector at the port of entry determines the visa holder's eligibility for admission into the United States.


That must be because they are referring to the following:

INA: ACT 235 - INSPECTION BY IMMIGRATION OFFICERS
(1) Inspection of aliens arriving in the United States and certain other aliens who have not been admitted or paroled.-
(A) Screening.-
i) In general.-If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) , the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review unless the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 208 or a fear of persecution.


You referenced the section 2, regarding "Other aliens" and not section 1.

That may be the case, but the US constitution has certain protections that cannot be overridden by Congress. If someone claims that they were denied entry due to race, religion, etc., while someone else of their nationality was admitted, they can sue the government for violation of the equal protection clause. They could also claim violation of due process if they weren't given a hearing of some sort.

I don't think anyone has ever made such a claim, but it could happen if someone had enough time and money and a good US-based lawyer. I wouldn't discount the possibility just because Congress said the decision is final.

So how do the inadmissible clauses in the above apply to someone with a valid visa and travel documents?