Section 107

So the following 2 situations involve much more serious charges than traffic infractions but are additional data points for international travel with pending warrants:

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-m...ravated-sexual

Note the CBP's statement about checking passengers on arrival AND departure and the number of arrests.

seawolf

They were stupid to fly into IAD with warrants from Virginia. If it was something minor and they flew into some airport far away from Virigina (eg SFO), then Virginia local DA may not bother with cost associated extradition.

catocony

The fact that they're presumably muslim - one Arab and one Afghani - surely had nothing to do with it.....

Boggie Dog

One man was arrested on 5 counts of aggravated sexual battery of a minor and the other for a brandishing a firearm on or near a school.

Should being muslim exempt them from being arrested for these types of charges?

catocony

No, but how many other travelers with warrants have passed through Dulles without being arrested? How many were arrested but without a press release about it?

WilcoRoger

So how many?

Boggie Dog

I don't know how CBP computer systems work but would guess that the flag popped up based on the name and the fact that an active warrant was out.

Or do you think the CBP system scans for Muslims with warrants?

GUWonder

I have no doubt that the CBP showboating on this with two people with "Muslim" names has everything to do with playing to some kind of audience.

GUWonder

Way more than 3 for that week.

The USG wants to boot out the Afghan LPR and/or use him for more than just playing to an audience of sort.

Often1

Perhaps you should know the answer to that before your post #3 . E.g., how many non-Muslims with active violent felony warrants issued by a local jurisdiction not requiring extradition, are permitted entry without detention. That data might inform quite well.

As to the broader issue, CBP checks many more sensitive databases than this on flight manifests and the fact that these two pop up on felony warrants is far from surprising. At IAD, they are in Virginia, the charges are close to local and there is no extradition involved in the two prosecuting jurisdictions simply picking the two up and heading off to Fairfax & Arlington. These two would have been picked up if there were a local unpaid fine.

I would hope that CBP would lodge a detainer against anyone not a USN who is taken into custody on a felony. Whether that individual ought to be deported need not be determined immediately, but that's how agencies keep track of others in whom they have a lawful interest as CBP does here.

On other matters, it really isn't a CBP decision. If the prosecuting agency does not want to pay the cost of extraditing an individual, there is nothing really for CBP to do other than perhaps deny entry if the charges are serious enough to warrant that and the likelihood of voluntary surrender not good enough.

As to the OP itself, maybe the message is that the best way to avoid this is not sexually assault minors.

FliesWay2Much

I really don't have a civil liberties problem with any of this. If someone is crossing the U.S. border, they are fair game and I would expect CBP to be checking for bad guys of any kind. This even goes back to the Argenbright days where a bad guy would have an outstanding warrant and the cops would find out that they had bought a plane ticket for a certain flight. The cops would set up a bust and arrest the guy at the airport. This is just good -- and legal -- police work.

I have a big problem when this occurs at internal checkpoints which the SCOTUS has ruled may only be set up for immigration checks. CBP has been generally ignoring Edmonds vs Indianapolis and nobody in the executive or legislative branches seems the least bit interested in stopping them.

I have a bigger problem when the TSA takes on the role of general law enforcement. Nobody seems compelled to stop them either.

GUWonder

I take issue with CBP grandstanding in this way -- no less so as there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This kind of governmental grandstanding is designed to play to an audience; and it is not designed for justice as much as to publicly paint the suspected criminals as criminals without concern for a fair trial, and without concern about due process. Such governmental smearing of a potential criminal trial defendant is not done in the interest of justice as much as to punish and pressure the targets even before a trial (if any trial even takes place), regardless of a court verdict (if any) on a criminal charge.

seawolf

Yes the press release serves a purpose but the rest about smearing...you lost me. It's no different that a news article about so and so got arrested.

TWA884

Please let's not go full OMNI in this thread.

Confine your remarks to the CBP's actions in this case.

While discussions and commentary about this CBP press release is a fit subject for the TS/S Policy Debate forum, arguments and opinions about rights of criminal defendants and fair trials belong in OMNI/PR.

Thank you for understanding,

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator

GUWonder

CBP is not a news company/journalistic entity.

A large proportion of CBP's public announcements about interdiction of unlawful actions or otherwise legally questionable behavior by US border crossers never mentions such extensive PII of those stopped by CBP in the way done in this CBP announcement.

It's not like these two named passengers are the only two in the month stopped by CBP for warrants issued against them.