|
Originally Posted by yandosan
(Post 20018024)
Yeah, it's odd how they often treat people like shite in US Airports.
After all, that adds to frustration, resentment and diminishes the "security" that they keep obsessing over. I mean, right? Who ever thought 911 would evolve into nasty, bitter clerks and ticket agents? Mike |
Originally Posted by bankops
(Post 20044715)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by blue_can
(Post 20048258)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by blue_can
(Post 20048258)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by bankops
(Post 20054207)
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. |
It's always the woman agents. Always.
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 20039634)
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. Why does this happen exactly? Do US nationals have their fingerprints stored on the biometric chip of their passports? The fact that this happens to ethnic minority citizens (I'm guessing the Muslim/Arab/Asian looking ones) shows how hideously uncomfortable the US is with diversity. |
Has anyone had any success in bringing in the interview to a close by pointing out the rudeness, saying you feel threatened, and asking for a supervisor?
|
Originally Posted by EK029
(Post 20062042)
Why does this happen exactly? Do US nationals have their fingerprints stored on the biometric chip of their passports?
The fact that this happens to ethnic minority citizens (I'm guessing the Muslim/Arab/Asian looking ones) shows how hideously uncomfortable the US is with diversity. When presented with a US passport they can check to see that the photo on file matches the person and that the passport is valid. It would be pretty hard to slip in on a forged/tampered US passport. They can't make such checks on foreign passports. Fingerprints won't catch forged foreign passports *THE FIRST TIME* but it means that once a spy has come into the country once they can never come in under another identity. |
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 20063308)
Actually, there is a good reason to fingerprint non-citizens: Espionage.
When presented with a US passport they can check to see that the photo on file matches the person and that the passport is valid. It would be pretty hard to slip in on a forged/tampered US passport. They can't make such checks on foreign passports. Fingerprints won't catch forged foreign passports *THE FIRST TIME* but it means that once a spy has come into the country once they can never come in under another identity. |
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 20063308)
Actually, there is a good reason to fingerprint non-citizens: Espionage.
When presented with a US passport they can check to see that the photo on file matches the person and that the passport is valid. It would be pretty hard to slip in on a forged/tampered US passport. They can't make such checks on foreign passports. Fingerprints won't catch forged foreign passports *THE FIRST TIME* but it means that once a spy has come into the country once they can never come in under another identity. Much the same goes for DHS's fingerprint process and use of fraudulent passports or fraudulently used "legitimate" passports. DHS's fingerprint matching is also otherwise something that can be made to fail, no less so when having the backing of resources of some of the states -- so-called "friendly" or otherwise -- that engage in espionage against the US. |
Originally Posted by EK029
(Post 20062042)
Why does this happen exactly? Do US nationals have their fingerprints stored on the biometric chip of their passports?
The fact that this happens to ethnic minority citizens (I'm guessing the Muslim/Arab/Asian looking ones) shows how hideously uncomfortable the US is with diversity. I myself (non-white person) have traveled to the US under the following category over the years - Visa Wavier Program, Visa holder (H1-B), Green Card holder and now US citizen. I have posted in other threads about this but the one occasion I got a lot of questions was while as a US citizen. I don't ever recall rude behavior or any issues travelling in and out of the country. |
Originally Posted by oldjonesy
(Post 20062550)
Has anyone had any success in bringing in the interview to a close by pointing out the rudeness, saying you feel threatened, and asking for a supervisor?
|
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 20063308)
Actually, there is a good reason to fingerprint non-citizens: Espionage.
When presented with a US passport they can check to see that the photo on file matches the person and that the passport is valid. It would be pretty hard to slip in on a forged/tampered US passport. They can't make such checks on foreign passports. Fingerprints won't catch forged foreign passports *THE FIRST TIME* but it means that once a spy has come into the country once they can never come in under another identity. Yes but I was referring to US nationals? |
Originally Posted by stevenshev
(Post 20022151)
There's no way to defend the actions of the CBP officer.
That said, I've had equally rude treatment flying into Australia, the UK, and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand, but, by far, worst of all, Canada. I have, however, never been treated anything other than nicely by an immigration official anywhere, including Canada and the US. I'm sure there are bad apples - there are everywhere - but I've never encountered them. I wouldn't judge the entire country based on them - I think both Canada and the US are beautiful countries and wholly worthy of visiting. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:52 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.