cynicalflyer

And THAT is where I think a good hefty amount of confusion comes into play here.

PTravel

Maybe so, but I assume they're not all drawn from a common pool. We travel internationally a lot, both pre- and post-9/11, aka consolidation of disparate agencies under the DHS umbrella. I still notice a very clear difference in attitude between those doing immigration clearance and those doing customs clearance. For example, in addition to the SFO racist, I had a run-in with an immigration inspector in, if I recall, Toronto -- the officer told me he would not let me back into the country unless I told him the identity of the client I had gone to visit. I explained that ethically, I could not identify clients without their permission. His response: "Then you're not coming home." I pushed it a bit and we reached a compromise -- I told him the kind of business in which my client was involved -- and he cleared me to re-enter. I was within moments of calling my office, though, and having one of the other lawyers go to court on an ex parte writ of mandamus. As I understand the Constitution, my re-entry to the country cannot be conditioned on disclosing this kind of information.

law dawg

That's fair enough, but they are indeed drawn from a "common pool." The same officer will work primary immigration point, then secondary, then primary customs, then secondary, etc. or some variation of the same.

Pre-CBP, these were separate agencies with different academies, administration, etc. "Although they were cross-designated, they did different jobs and there was little overlap unless you were crossing a land POE. Then they was more overlap.

But today? They all do the same job and rotate amongst them, as a rule.

fester

That is precisely why I left Customs not too long after 09/11. It was always funny working land border secondary when someone would come in and say the Customs guy in the booth was a prick We would always ask if the Inspector was in a white shirt or blue shirt. The white shirts caused quite a few more problems than we did.

Taker Park

We had a lot of problems with the white shirt/blue shirt thing including more complaints against the white shirts. Now we have to ask what did they look like. Did you have issues regarding the use of force policy when comparing shirts?

Goldlust

Seems unreasonable to me. I agree that your suggested approach is probably the best but the OP is not asking for suggestions as to how he should have acted. Rather, he is asking whether the question was reasonable/legal or not. Not knowing US law in this area (or most other areas), I am unable to offer an answer as to whether it is legal or not.

Certainly, I do not think it is reasonable. This, because I would dislike the Danish police even more (except this is not possible) if they ever asked me that when I returned to Denmark.

Where does it say so in the Constitution of the United States? (Not challenging it, just wondering.)

How can a citizen enter his own country for a non-business purpose? Are you not allowed to do whatever you want in your country of citizenship?

For the record, I have never been asked anything when entering Denmark from outside of Schengen. Indeed, several times, the police officer has not even opened my passport but just looked at the front and concluded that I was a Dane returning.

thegeneral

I don't see what the issue is here. Every customs I've gone through, home country included, always ask what the purpose of my trip has been. From your diatribe at the start of your post, it seems like you're a non-resident of the US. That would mean that it is only logical for the customs agent to ask what the purpose of your trip was. I don't see why you'd have to cause an issue of this and create a 5 page thread on FT.

You're a non-resident returning to a country. They want to know why you're there. They likely also will ask you how long you're going to be there. I've entered Canada before on very short notice due to a family illness. When asked how long I was going to there I didn't know what to say. I was rather upset at the time, had dropped everything and driven north. I told her I didn't know. She said I had to say something. I said a week and that was that.

Customs are able to any number of things to an American citizen on crossing the border. They can pretty much rip your luggage/car apart if they want to. They have a job to do. I'm sure that the people in the line behind you really appreciated some guy going off about how he shouldn't have to say why he is visiting the country.

fester

We had those issues as well. The biggest problem we had was white shirts hitting alarms on primary and no one but blue shirts responding. I would hope that is a thing of the past, but I guess the legacy folks will always be that way.

vesicle

Do to my new found personal jihad against all things stupid in society I think some of you are missing a great opportunity.

If at some point you are denied entry to your home country due to refusal to answer some of the questions above...stand your ground...deal with the hassle and possible detainment...eventually you will be let in as long as you haven't broken a law...then get rich as hell off the TV appearances and lawsuits.

They want to be power hungry losers? Use it to your advantage.

PTravel

It sounds like now, instead of having specialists in border entry, we have generalists in harassment.

Taker Park

It's not isolated to legacy folks. There have been some improvements, but there will always be issues in any line of work.

wesmills

The OP is a United States citizen, who happens to reside somewhere else at the moment. Residency is only applicable for non-citizens; a citizen has the common law right of abode and entry in their country of citizenship, regardless of where they live. All of the questions you proposed above (why and how long you're there) are not applicable to a citizen.

As for the person behind in line, frankly this is why we have many of the problems we do in the US: we refuse to get bent out of shape because it is inconvenient. I don't care if it's inconvenient or not, my country will not treat me badly.

When my wife (a non-citizen PR) came through immigration and customs with me after a cruise, they stamped her passport but not mine. The other immigration officer got onto the guy who stamped her passport, saying "we don't do an admissions stamp on PRs and citizens; they have the right to be here." The first officer then apologized to my wife for the incorrect stamp and offered to strike it out.

Not having to ask nicely and hope for the best in order to enter a country is the very definition of "right of abode," and I'd thank CBP to remember that.

law dawg

All this is true, yet the CBP officer has to determine you are who you say you are. In other words, its not just claim to be a USC and off you go.

Additionally a CBP officer CAN indeed ask what the purpose of your trip was. One doesn't have to answer in order to gain entry, but you will more than likely be secondaried.

Your country shouldn't treat you badly, nor you it. There is a job to do at admissions.

vesicle

Then they can give me a "secondary" should they choose to use TSA like retaliatory measures. Knowing why I was outside the country or searching my things has nothing to do with proving my citizenship.

law dawg

Correct. But it does have to do with what you're carrying. Customs and Immigration are two segments of one process. Being evasive/hesitant about where you've been could be related to any number of things. Or just someone proving a point. You never know until you check it out.