Both Border Patrol and CBP can and do airport operations just has they do train and bus terminal operations. If your friend is in the country illegally. He takes his chances that he may run into law enforcement just like any other person that is involved in illegal activity.

FB

Sorry wrong button meant to hit post reply not quote.

Unless your friend's name appears on a no-fly or other alert list, it's highly unlikely he will have any difficulty. The TSA looks for legit government-issued identification. If the State of Idaho issued the license, it will have all the appropriate markings the ID checker is looking for. If you're not crossing any international borders, there's no reason for anyone to be checking citizenship (unless you're passing through Arizona, which is a whole different story).

I think the point was to minimize such an encounter.

Even in AZ, someone holding a valid DL and "looks American" is ulikely to have a problem there, IMO.

Would you prefer that I type "Don't talk to the guys in the green or dark blue uniforms." I don't mind giving advice but I am not supposed to help them to continue to be in the country illegally. Uncle Sam might get upset with me.

FB

Your "consensual encounter" is a coordinated effort by TSA and CBP to force people into talking to your colleagues. I wait for the next time I see them to see what my walking past them without saying a word does. If they end up touching me or attempting to detain me, I'm sure you will be happy to be a witness for my side.

People walk by us all the time. It is a choice to talk to us or not. The airport operation can and is conducted at any point in the airport. They occur at the checkpoint, the gates, baggage claim, in front of the bathroom if that is where the officer decides to ask the questions. The choice to talk to the officer or not is entirely up to the traveler. Very few people say nothing at all to the officer. Some will say they really don't have time. Fewer still will say they don't want to answer our questions at all. (Which is probably a better tactic for you to use as it leaves no doubt if you heard us or not). The majority of people answer the questions and are on their way in less than a minute and a half. You can put it in quotes all you like it still is the travelers choice to talk to us or not. There is no requirement that we advise them they don't have to talk to us.

FB

There is a report that one BP agent was physically blocking the line to the TSO in one case.

Of course not. Your organization could not effectively function with that type of direct honesty. Do not, however, expect any response from those of us who've educated ourselves re: our rights in such an encounter.



At ROC, couple of weeks back, observed CBP officers, one on each side of travel check, apparently waiting for non-US passports to be proferred for TDC "papers, please" processing. The CBP officers would then spring over to the TDC podium, and get involved in the processing, presumably looking for further proof of legality to be in the country. The hypothetical individual legality of presence challenge in TX is already happening continually in upstate NY.

I also tried a non-US passport at TDC but could generate no such challenge. Perhaps they know me from FT.

How much further does this need to go before all can see that our airports have simply become an internal border?

(BTW, it's always easy to know when CBP is piling on to the airport check-point Charlie, they need at least 2 vehicles, miraculously exempted from the FAA no stopping directives, highly visible, parked in the ROC airport tow-away zones.)

It is interesting that you say that like I would believe that it is a bad thing. I don't think it is bad at all everyone should be educated on their rights. Where we probably differ is I want to see everybody educated with the accurate information concerning their rights. A lot of what I have seen as "information" concerning people’s rights that has been posted on the internet is horribly inaccurate. Add in the fact that many of the laws that get discussed can vary greatly depending on what state you are in and even what federal circuit court you are in. It usually is not as clear cut as all of us would like.

Or perhaps your assumption concerning your observation was incorrect but I am guessing that could never be possible. Since, you seem so familiar with CBP operations.



Or perhaps you might see what those involved in Immigration Enforcement have seen long ago. That airports, train stations, and bus stations are used and are an extention of the smuggling routes used to smuggle people and contraband into and around the United States.

FB

You physically threaten people by wearing weapons and physically blocking their way. Hardly a choice. But thanks for this. I will walk right past next time. If I get touched by one of your colleagues, assault and battery charges will be filed. If they block my way, I will file assault charges for the non-consensual encounter.

Not only that, but the TDC at the medical/family line was directing passengers away from that entry to the checkpoint and to the one where the armed Border Patrol agents were blocking the way.

You might as well say "9/11" over and over again. Perhaps spell Marijuana with an h? You will say anything to justify harassing people.

Read the INA. Anyone can be stopped ANYWHERE if they are believed to be an alien. This has NOTHING to do with a border, where EVERYONE can be stopped if it is believed that they crossed an international border (or functional equivalent). There is absolutely no consent required if either of these conditions exist.

No one should be physically threatened by a uniformed armed officer with a holstered sidearm. I would suggest you check with the current court rulings on this subject. You will find this like most things in this forum concerning Immigration and Customs have already been argued before a judge and ruled on. This is one of those subjects. You are free to file what ever you wish with whom ever. I wish you luck on the outcome.

You always have a choice. You are also making it much more sinister and dramatic then it is. How it generally works is this. I would either walk up to you or you would be walking by me. I would say excuse me can I talk with you for a minute or would you answer a few questions for me. This is the time for your choice. If you don't want to talk to the officer, this is the time for you to say I don't want to. The officer will move on to the next opportunity. I am sorry and somewhat saddened that you don't think that people can have the courage to tell another human being that I don't want to talk to you. The whole you are armed argument hasn't held water in court nor does it here. It is common knowledge that the circumstances that I can use the weapons on my belt are very limited even more so for that firearm that you seem to be so nervous about.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. It has to do with a Law Enforcement Officer looking for someone who has broken the law by being in the country illegally. The officer is doing that function within the parameters set down by the legislators and US Court system. Law Enforcement agencies perform their functions in accordance with the policies set down by their respective command. Those policies are written based on laws and court decisions. When the courts change a ruling, the policies get changed and the LEO gets to spend several days in training.

FB

It is a strange issue to hash out when a uniformed BP/CBP officer is physically blocking a line to the TDC. On the one hand, if I said I don't want to answer any questions and s/he moved aside, that would be fine . . . for me.

On the other hand, you have people (call them "kettles" for the time being) who walk up to a line to go through security. They see people with DHS patches and badges and other people with DHS patches and badges further down. They know that they have to show their boarding pass and ID to the people with the DHS patches and badges to go to through the security checkpoint if they want to fly that day, but are they expected to know the difference between the two patches/badges? Kettles would also expect that the questions they are being asked by all these DHS patched and badged folks have to do with airport security and would answer them.

I don't think the legality of such operations need be questioned for this reason (others can disagree with this, but I just don't see an issue), but this seems to be a case of real LEOs using the perception of authority that TSOs are given in order to further their LEO mission. It is truly the unique case when being perceived as a TSO rather than an LEO serves an LEO's interests!

See, you seem to completely have missed what I said. I said that if you or one of your colleagues touched me or attempted to detain me on this issue, I would take action.

1) Most people don't have the courage not to speak to you because your colleagues have threatened, beaten and murdered people in shocking numbers. Including just today in San Ysidro.

2) This was a situation in which people were forced into this "consensual" encounter.

Genuine Question. Why do US Immigration / Customs officers carry sidearms?

You are in a secure area of the airport, interacting with passengers who are arriving on international flights and have been screened for weapons before boarding.

I have traversed through Immigration and Customs in Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, India and the United States, and the US has so far been the only country where I have been greeted by a Immigration officer carrying a sidearm.

Its fine and dandy to say one should not be physically threatened by a uniformed officer with a holstered sidearm, but people in most of the civilized world who don't see guns very often can and do get intimidated at the sight of a uniformed person bearing firearm. Surely the very first interaction that a foreigner has on US shores can be a little less intimidating.