CBP/TSA Power
 

As a non-US citizen,

Can I refuse answering ridiculous, irrelevant questions by CBP?
Can I refuse any questions by TSA?
Can TSA ask me for other things than my BP/ID (be it documents or questions) and do I have to answer/provide even though I provided BP/ID?
Does TSA have the right to inspect (as in read) documents in my hand luggage?
Can CBP force me to unlock my phone for inspection?

Basically, which rights as far as privacy/keeping silent are concerned, differ for non-US citizens vs. US citizens.
I understand CBP can deny me entry if I refuse to answer questions. But to I have to respond to EVERYTHING?

Which demands does TSA/CBP 'often' ask (to foreigners) which they aren't able to do by law?

I am very careful with CBP as they have a very real ability to influence my career and my life. I interact with them as I do with similar agencies around the world, although they are the only ones I fear.

With TSA, they do treat me poorly quite often, as well as other 'furriners'. The name game is one instance; they tell me that I say my name 'wrong'. :rolleyes: When I am tired, or stressed, or in pain, I'm not certain which language will come out of my mouth. Sometimes I am too tired to play their games. So then my answer may come out in German, or in French, just as thousands of travellers a day at US airports may respond in a different language.

The typical result is to shout at me more and more loudly until I respond in English, which often makes it more difficult as shouted regional American accents are difficult to understand. (The very common way to make furriners understand, don't you know, is just to shout louder and louder in English?) When I face stupidity such as the TDCs at IAD who don't know if they accept German passports as valid ID, and demand my US driver's license, :rolleyes::rolleyes: , I try and bite my tongue.

When I am stressed I tend to become very, very quiet, and very, very polite. It may be in English, or it may be in a different language, but I try and have as little interaction as possible to get through TSA as quickly as possible. Being a woman, being a furriner, being someone with physical limitations, and being someone who travels in a skirt, I am a very easy target for TSA, unfortunately, so my interaction is usually far more than I would like.

Sometimes it's very easy, sometimes it's very awful.

Can both agencies "force" you to speak English in front of them (to family members or such)?
I've heard some stories this can backfire you, as they feel 'threatened' when they do not understand you. Then don't work at an international airport! :rolleyes: :mad:

They try. I've seen it many times at LAS with groups of older Japanese tourists, who commonly don't speak English.

SFO is contract security, but they were screaming at Germans, Koreans, and Japanese to play the name game. The Germans ahead of me caved, but I very politely over and over asked in German why they wanted my name when it was very clearly written on my boarding pass, and helpfully showed them a few times where my name was written. In the end after several minutes of shouting, I was sent on in disgust. The Germans around me congratulated me, and the TDC moved on to scream at some bewildered Koreans.

I've had conversations many times with other travellers in German, or in French, at the TSA checkpoint. But the TSOs expect us to speak and understand English when we reach them. I think that there is the stereotype of young to middle-aged Europeans all being able to speak and understand American English, which just isn't the case. Your countrymen tend to speak the best English in my experience, but not every young person speaks English, and certainly the further eastwards one goes the less that happens. And knowing school English learned in Europe isn't the same as understanding TSO barking in regional American accents!

I try and just realise that they are being very ignorant, and don't let it annoy me if possible.

In Germany by the way I believe that it is required to speak at least 3 languages to be airport security. I think that it must be the same in the Netherlands and most places around Europe. In Canada I can use English or French with no issue as CATSA must offer up both options. But I don't think that TSA has any such language requirement or even any sort of stated option to request anything else.

As a general rule: A non-citizen entering a foreign country should either comply with instructions from immigration or be prepared to leave and possibly be barred from entering for a period of years.

As for the TSA, the only thing they can force you to do is to leave through the entrance :)

CBP is a law enforcement agency. They have a real job to do. They frequently don't do it well, in their defense of Fortress America, but they have the authority of cause you serious problems if you don't comply. Worse case is most likely a wait in secondary if you don't answer questions to their satisfaction, but you'll eventually get in. Welcome to Fortress America.

TSA is a joke and the clerks need to be reminded of that frequently. They don't have much of a real job to do, so they invent things to do. They usually don't do it well, but they don't have much authority to cause a serious problem beyond a confused delay at screening and a retaliatory grope. Stupid is as stupid does.

Yes, but you may be subject to additional inspection and may even be refused admission to the country.

Legally, yes, but practically you'll be in for a hassle.

TSA can ask for whatever they want. You can say, "no."

No, though if in the process of inspecting for weapons/explosives/incendiaries, they read documents in your possession, what they read can be admitted as evidence against you.

"Force"? No. However, they can confiscate your phone and send it for analysis if you don't cooperate.

None -- the 4th and 5th Amendments apply to "people," not just "US citizens." However, certain 4th Amendment rights don't pertain at the borders or quasi-borders, i.e. airports.

No one can force you to respond to anything. However, as you note, you can be denied admission and, if probable cause exists, arrested.

Not being a foreigner, I don't know. However, TSA and CBP frequently overstep their lawful authority.

Given the ability I would never speak a word of english to a TSA clerk.

TSA for do sure, but I'm not certain about CBP particularly regarding non-US citizens. They have quite far-reaching legal* powers.

* well, allowed by the courts anyway, which may not be the same thing morally

CBP/TSA Power
 

Thanks for the answers! Most interesting, certainly the part that some rights don't apply at airports.
I am not planning to mess with CBP, but indeed if TSA is power tripping on me, by for example asking my name when I provided photo ID and BP, I will refuse to answer. In that case I wanted to double check they can't do anything with their threats like 'you have to answer that or...'.
As I understand they HAVE to let you through unless you have forbidden items or do not cooperate with screening. Refusing answering at the BP check is no ground for them?

I guess I don't understand your position. I am opposed to TSA's actions because, as an American citizen, I view it as disregard of fundamental rights. I would note that "say your name" is not a Constitutional violation, but merely an incredibly stupid prologue to the TSA dog-and-pony show. When I am a guest in someone else's country, I act like a guest. That means I respect the rules of the country I'm visiting. If you object to TSA intrusiveness, that's fine -- then don't come. Otherwise, I just don't understand what business it is of yours. This is an American issue.

I'll do what an American has to do, and refuse things an American can refuse to do. I have no problem with security. But don't BS me with nonsensical questions or demands which aren't fundamental for what I have to undergo; a check of myself and belongings for dangerous items. Nothing more, nothing less.
Being a visitor to a country does not mean one has to act to every demand a inhabitant of that country gives you.

Except that you're not an American. You're a guest in my country, just as, when I visit the Netherlands, I am a guest in yours. I don't pick fights with Dutch government agents and I expect foreign visitors to refrain from picking fights with American government agents.

Being a visitor to a country means you act like a guest. You are a guest of my government. Even if I, as an American citizen, disagree with my government's actions, that doesn't mean it's okay for visitors to treat my government and its employees with disrespect. You have no more say in how this government is run than I have in how your government is run. I asked you before: what business is it of yours? Why would you think it is appropriate for you to come here and stage your personal protest? As we say in this country, you have no dog in this hunt.

CBP/TSA Power
 

I do not claim more influence on the process than you, I claim equal treatment to what an American can do.
If you are a visitor to my country, I do not regard myself as being more than you/you being less (entitled) than me. You can do everything I can do within the law as far as I am concerned.

You have no influence on the process or, more accurately, you have no say about it.

You miss the point, I think. This has nothing to do with "what an American can do." According to TSA, no one, including Americans, is exempt from pronouncing their name. Many Americans, including myself, think TSA is not only wrong, but that TSA's policies add nothing to security and wastes billions of dollars of our tax money. That makes it an American concern. We who are American citizens have a vested interest in keeping our government efficient, effective and acting within the limits of our Constitution. None of that is any of your concern.

EVERYONE has to pronounce their name to TSA if asked? Fine, I'll do it. No problem. But don't differentiate Americans and foreigners in that case.

The only real difference between an American protesting the name game and a foreigner is what can happen to you. They're not going to send you off to GITMO for it but in our protectionist society you could be put on lists that can have an effect on your next visit.
We pretty much all agree that this entire thing is BS, but let the Americans fight the fight so you don't fall under the watchful eye of the United States of Paranoia.
You, as a foreigner, have mostly the exact rights as an American citizen, but there is plenty our Gov't and its startlingly arrogantly ignorant agents can do to mess with you.

I liken this to the body scanners at LHR. I have the right as an American in America to not have to go through them, but there I have to. I always ask politely if it is an option and mostly the people are nice and say it is mandatory for all but once I got the riot act from this one woman about how Americans don't control everything. I might not like it, everyone has to do it, but i'll ask if it's mandatory as a passive resistance.

Yeah, I understand I should not mess to much.
In case of a patdown, as a minor do I have the same rights as adults? Do they sometimes conduct random patdowns?

I've already explained -- you have the same rights as any American.

Yes.

The only places I've been asked to say my name have been Austin and San Francisco. I've never had a chatdown anywhere, I've never had a patdown, and I've only gone through NoS 3-4 times. I have my methods of making the system work for me, since I deal with the system all the time. As a Dutch kid with an attitude, these things may not work out for you the way they would work out for me.

If CBP gives me a hassle, I complain like crazy while stuck in secondary. That tends to get me through quickly. The worst that will happen to me is I remain stuck in secondary for a while before going home, which is 10 minutes from the airport.

If TSA gives me a hassle, I give them a sour look and ignore them as best as possible. I have my contingency plans ready in case TSA puts me a position to willingly not comply. I will never comply with an intrusive patdown. I will leave the airport and try again later. I'll cancel my flight and go home. I'll rent a car or take Amtrak to get back home. I will not answer questions if I ever am faced with a chatdown. I will tell them off, and either they let me through security on my terms or my contingency plan for willingly not flying that day kick in.

You will be at least six thousand kilometers from home. So, not gaining entry to the country - which is not a 100% guarantee in your case - is bad. Not being able to get through airport security is equally bad, unless you want to take the QE2 or book space on a freighter to get back to Europe. My advice - if TSA asks you to say your name, say your name. If Immigration asks you how long you'll be in the US, tell them. If Customs ask you if you have anything to declare, be honest. Don't travel 10 hours and thousands of miles just to pick a fight.

I will avoid at all costs. I respect CBP and customs. TSA not so much.
If they respect me and treat me with dignity, they can expect the same from me. My basic setting is courteous and cooperative, don't understand me wrong about that. If they shout if I do not understand, they can expect the same from me.
I don't want to give myself nor CBP a hard time. But based on some stories, I wonder why some people are allowed to work with foreigners.
I will answer CBP/customs questions without doubt. I understand they are important for my admittance. But beyond those agencies (and other LEO's), I value my privacy.

As said before, I am more than willing to provide required information in a polite, courteous and cooperative manner. I expect the same however when they ask me and do not like to be the victim of a powertripper.

It's just, I wonder why all this is necessary. Waiting in line for one hour while they have all my info through ESTA. While I and foreigners are thru immigration in most other countries in a matter of minutes with just a flash of the passport. No ESTA, no fingerprints nor photographs. But every now and then with a candy (SIN). :)
And yes I understand I am just subject to this and respect that. I just wish it would be as fast and convenient as possible.

OP's question about CBP is asked in an odd way and perhaps it's important to make clear:

1. No. OP need not communicate with CBP at all.
2. But, if he fails to, the decision to exclude OP from entry to the US, is with some very limited exceptions, made by the CBP Officer conducting the interview. At a minimum, a long & painful process to be admitted. At worst, exclusion followed by many years of serious problems not only at the US border, but at many entry points around the world because US and foreign govts share this information

I understood, and I will answer questions by CBP. I don't come to the states to make a fuss with a man holding my passport. :D

You are creating a double standard: the only basis for saying you object to TSA's actions is one under law, ie. the US constitution. Yet at the same time you are also saying that those rights don't apply to non-citizens. So much for "inalienable". :rolleyes:


Let's make your reasoning very plain: you're saying that it is unlawful for a police officer to pull you over and rifle through your care and plant evidence? But because someone is foreign they should have no right to protest the same thing? It's the exact same thing as TSA asking a non-citizen questions they can't/shouldn't ask a citizen. The fact of citizenship is not the reason person A or B can tell them to get stuffed. It's the fact that the questions or actions exceed the authority granted under law to TSA in and of itself. Citizenship doesn't come into it.

That's what I tried to ask. But maybe I was seriouslylost in translation. :D

If it affects her/him then it is. Mere accident of place of birth doesn't change the inherent rights of a person.

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that this is an American fight -- it is not the business of a non-citizen to construe the Constitution on their own and act according to their construction. When you are a guest in someone else's country you act like a guest. You don't come to pick a political fight.

Let's make your reasoning very plain:

Zero summation: Zero summation consists of a false summary of an earlier post by deliberately misstating its meaning in a conclusory fashion. This is a technique often used by master baiters. It's easy to recognize and, in fact, there is an example above. Just look for a sentence that begins with, "So, you . . ." followed by an illogical assertion completely unrelated to the original statement.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/14917457-post1.html

Please re-read what I wrote. I never said anything of the sort. I'll spell it out for you: a foreign visitor who comes to the US looking to pick a fight with government agents, or anyone else, is rude and, if they disagree with how we do things here, should show their displeasure by staying home. It is neither their fight nor their business.

Utterly false and immoral position :D and much as I hesitate to use the simple example (although it's not invoking Godwin because it is apt for this point) the stark bankruptcy of it pre-1940's Germany. You are effectively saying that you wouldn't protest or argue about, say, a Chinese court railroading charges against you (because you offended some local official) & sentencing you to death and harvesting your organs simply because your doing so would be "un-guestly"? I can't see many people agreeing with your "reasoning".

People, and nation states do, IMO, have a moral duty to intervene in certain circumstances. Individuals, when it affects their own person, certainly have a right to express an opinion and undertake protest. To argue otherwise is positively bizarre IMO. Low grade protest for low grade violation, suh as the name game with TSA, is well within any individuals rights (& sometimes duty) IMO.


Again, your position simply doesn't make sense. The example I gave simply used different terms with the same logical structure. That it stands out as absurd isn't a comment on my example...


You ascribe intent that hasn't been shown, so you're off to a bad start already. The OP asked a question about what they can or can't do under law. Is it really your position that they have no right to security & protection & privacy simply due to the passport they present?

The basic rule with CBP is that if they don't have probable cause then you don't have to give them access to anything in particular. You generally do have to answer questions, but only in so far as it helps them determine eligbility to enter the US. Many CPB officers tend to be rather alpha-male about their powers, so they go overboard, but protesting at the time is a choice you make on your own. Security protected devices are not, in and of themselves, probable cause. If they do have probable cause then they can require you to cough it up, but they have various hoops they have to jump through first.

TSA can't ask you to do much of anything outside of their job of screening you for items banned from flying. You can happily tell them to get bent.

^ That.

This is what I intended to ask. I thought exact the same and thank you for your confirmation. ^
I was not planning to bully Americans as that seems to come across to some. I just wanted to know if I am able to deny answering/doing stupidity without being punished BY LAW. Powertripping agents aside. :o

First, be very clear on the differences between Customs and Border Patrol and TSA. They do very different jobs and have very different levels of authority.

Of course you can refuse to answer the questions of either. However such refusal will have consequences. You can review the types of questions the CBP might ask at https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/det...try-to-the-u.s. Choosing not to answer them would likely get you put on the next plane out.

I'll quote just the final paragraph of that page, as it is something you might wish to consider carefully:

From the Immigration Policy Center of the American Immigration Council:
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/jus...gents-overview
The above statement matches what I've always heard/read about the powers of the Border Patrol. What is your source for saying they need probable cause?

I am "effectively saying" nothing of the sort. This guy wants to pick a fight with TSA, not stand up to being railroaded in a Chinese court. You must be either an engineer, a computer programmer, or extremely young, given that everything is either black or white to you.

Speaking of China, my first visit there I received a fine (a couple of dollars) for putting out my cigarette on the ground outside the Shenzhen train station. Enforcement was, obviously, selective.

What would you do?

a. Argue with official because it's unfair.
b. Demand to see the statute under which you were required to pay the fine.
c. Apologize, pay the fine, and remind yourself that both legal and cultural rules may be different in the country you are visiting.

Three guesses what I did.

And you think people and nation states have a moral duty to intervene with respect to TSA asking you to pronounce your name? Really?

Where do you find this "right"?

To argue that you can impose your moral views on another country when you are visiting is both bizarre and rude. It's like the tipping threads in which foreign visitors to the U.S. say, "I don't believe in tipping, so I don't tip in America." What is so mystifying about, "proper conduct as a guest"?

And IMO, the only "protest" a foreign visitor who objects to the practice is to stay home and let the US state department know why they don't want to visit.

I don't like compulsory x-ray full-body scanning in the UK. I'm not going to go and "stand on my rights" (which I don't understand in the UK and, I guarantee, the OP doesn't understand in the US). I simply won't fly into those airports that use it.

You should have read the link, which was satire.

Your "example" is completely off-point, extreme and most certainly does not use, "the same logical structure." Please show me the court decision holding the name game unconstitutional. Please explain how the name game violates any constitutionally-secured right. Please explain which Amendment of the Bill of Rights is violated by the name game.

This should be interesting.

The intent of the OP is not only quite clear, but he has stated it expressly several times.

And I told him. And I also gave my opinion about foreign visitors who come here to test the law.

Please explain what right is violated by the name game. A foreign visitor who, for example, is pulled stopped on the street by a LEO who heard a "foreign accent," is arrested without probable cause, brought to the station and strip-searched, most certainly SHOULD protest this clear and present violation of rights secured to all by the 4th Amendment. The name game is stupid. It is not presumptively unconstitutional.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. :)

They can search anything that is open or accessible - bags, documents, unprotected devices. They cannot demand passwords or access to secure devices absent probable/articuable cause.

Ink's brief interjection into a very interesting discussion:

I find that the name game is a silly practice, but as implemented it is a relatively trivial matter. They have my name written on the BP. They have my destination airport. It is a trivial matter to state both as I am neither disclosing confidential information or providing information not already in the possession of the TDC. Now, when the questioning moves to where I am staying, the work I will be doing and other matters not related to the verification of my travel documents, then the game is over, and I don't play.

Pot, meet kettle.


Engaged in absolutist discussion and misrepresented what they'd done or said while trying to be all macho on the internet?


Who was it saying that things must be B&W? Personally, I think the world is shades of grey, but then, I'm not the one arguing an absolutist position.


It's on the shelf next to "right thinking people" and "rights only exist because of birthplace". My apologies that you didn't get the oblique reference to the difference between moral rights and legal rights.




You know full well you're being disingenous. The right is expressed via several cases over many years. People, in the US, have a right to privacy. It's not absolute at a border with CBP, but the TSA has no authority in this respect, at a border or elsewhere. They want your name they can learn to read the boarding pass & ID they're holding.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-l...-right-privacy



I disagree. But hey, we're clearly not going to agree.

Enjoy responding and winning the internet. :D

I agree on the trivial part, but I have moved to the view over the years that it is simply part of the problem and should therefore be resisted. As in, it's part of the incrementalism that TSA knowingly engages in, so allowing that part is letting them condition the sheeple to what comes after. It is, after all, equally trivial to protest.

Is that what you think? Show me a case that even addresses the name game. Just one will do.

Show me a case that holds that the name game violates the 4th Amendment. Just one will do.

In what respect? I asked you, specifically, to explain HOW the name game violates the Constitution.

And, not surprisingly, your link to the ACLU says absolutely nothing about the name game.

You can disagree, but you're simply wrong. I asked you for facts. You provided none. If you want to compare the basis for opinion, I'm happy to: I'm a licensed attorney who has practiced for 21 years. How 'bout you?

I guess you're not a computer programmer or an engineer. Just very, very young. You don't get to come into a thread, attack my positions backed with absolutely nothing but your own uninformed opinion and, then, when you challenged to support it, run away with the Internet equivalent of "neener neener." This isn't about who lost, who was wrong.

And can you provide a link to support your statement?

In a Google search I was able to find many sources stating that CBP (not TSA) does not require probable cause, but not a single story to the contrary came up in the first three pages. There were also a number of stories of devices being confiscated by the CBP for search by their staff, whom I suspect have technology which could bypass many, if not most, password systems.