![]() |
Originally Posted by kwflyer
(Post 27195294)
I'm sure some will find exceptions to prove the rule.
Believe it or not, CBP is smart enough not to waste its time with permanently attempting to interrogate those who don't answer questions. |
Originally Posted by jphripjah
(Post 27195310)
Have you heard of otherwise law-abiding and non-suspicious people getting permanent secondary inspection because they refused to answer questions?
<deleted> |
Originally Posted by kwflyer
(Post 27195294)
I'm sure some will find exceptions to prove the rule. But when being perceived to be uncooperative, one should manage expectations accordingly, and prepare for the highest common denominator of scrutiny.
Some "otherwise law-abiding and non-suspicious people" get permanent secondary inspection because they answered questions. That happens sometimes too, perhaps even way more often than for not having a willingness to discuss more than what was listed on the printed declaration form. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 27197405)
When it comes to not answering questions beyond that on the declaration form, avoiding permanent referral to secondary is not a matter of "exceptions to prove the rule". Rather, permanent referral to secondary would be the exception rather than the common outcome.
Some "otherwise law-abiding and non-suspicious people" get permanent secondary inspection because they answered questions. That happens sometimes too, perhaps even way more often than for not having a willingness to discuss more than what was listed on the printed declaration form. Not necessarily avoiding anything, But managing expectation's that's covers all possible scenarios regardless of perceived frequency. There's many ways to get a permanent referral. One of them is not answering questions. |
Originally Posted by kwflyer
(Post 27204799)
Not necessarily avoiding anything, But managing expectation's that's covers all possible scenarios regardless of perceived frequency. There's many ways to get a permanent referral. One of them is not answering questions.
|
I don't know that there is such a thing as a permanent referral to secondary inspection.
|
Originally Posted by jphripjah
(Post 27208686)
I don't know that there is such a thing as a permanent referral to secondary inspection.
That said, the primary officer has access to a lot of information, including automatically determined risk assessments, which they are not going to simply ignore. An officer can see past noncompliance (if it was noted) and decide you're not their job to deal with. And they have to keep the line moving... |
I think there may be alerts dictating that certain people be sent to secondary, but I don't think they are ever permanent or lifelong.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:58 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.