|
Originally Posted by N1120A
(Post 17184258)
Just as the TSA has zero business looking for drugs in someone's bag, or even trying to determine whether something they see is drugs, they have no business speculating on or reporting on someone's immigration status. |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17183898)
Its not "snitching"; its due diligence.
You are correct, having the card and attempting to use it is not illegal (as far as I know, heck as of 2002/3 about a dozen states allowed people to use these cards to get drivers license). But Section 8 USC 1324 makes it a crime, when you reasonably suspect someone of being illegal, to give them aid. I and other TSOs must report it to a LEO (actually contact a STSO, who upon verifying what we have seen, contact a LEO). You can argue all you want, but it is reasonable for me to suspect that only those who are here illegally will have and use this card (take the person who posted the question that started the current conversation). Specifically from Section 8 USC 1324: "(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;" and... "(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;" Now, you may not like this, but there it is. Yes, TSA will contact a LEO. We are required to by law, as it is VERY reasonable to suspect this person is an illegal immigrant. That's my understanding of the law, but we all know that TSA and police don't always follow the laws. Does anyone have an actual example of an illegal immigrant trying to go through a checkpoint? |
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 17185337)
Even if you called a LEO, what could he/she do? They cannot investigate someone's immigration status based on mere suspicion that they are an illegal immigrant. Arizona just passed a law trying to give them the authority to do so, but it was struck down in court (and is being appealed). So assuming that the Supreme Court doesn't overturn that ruling, law enforcement cannot investigate anyone's immigration status because of a "suspicion", no matter how "reasonable" it is. The person who presented a Matricula Consular at the checkpoint would be free to turn around and leave, and neither the TSA nor local PD could detain them.
That's my understanding of the law, but we all know that TSA and police don't always follow the laws. Does anyone have an actual example of an illegal immigrant trying to go through a checkpoint? In any event, why would one present the consular card as ID at the checkpoint? Its not on the list of acceptable IDs, and doing so is the equivalent to getting pulled over by the police, and handing them a fake driver's licence you made at home. |
Originally Posted by alexb133
(Post 17186092)
In any event, why would one present the consular card as ID at the checkpoint? Its not on the list of acceptable IDs, and doing so is the equivalent to getting pulled over by the police, and handing them a fake driver's licence you made at home.
|
Originally Posted by N1120A
(Post 17184258)
This should not be a debate on immigration policy. Take that to OMNI P/R
Originally Posted by N1120A
(Post 17184258)
Just as the TSA has zero business looking for drugs in someone's bag, or even trying to determine whether something they see is drugs, they have no business speculating on or reporting on someone's immigration status. TSA are not "law enforcement", they are government employees tasked with preventing WEI from getting on airplanes.
Originally Posted by alexb133
(Post 17185171)
Yes they are required by law to report suspicious illegal activity to law enforcement.
Originally Posted by alexb133
(Post 17185171)
While they themselves are not peace officers, that doesn't mean they "have no business trying to determine whether something they see is drugs".
|
Originally Posted by alexb133
(Post 17186092)
The TSA should call CBP to investigate into someone's immigration status, not the local police.
Originally Posted by alexb133
(Post 17186092)
In any event, why would one present the consular card as ID at the checkpoint? Its not on the list of acceptable IDs, and doing so is the equivalent to getting pulled over by the police, and handing them a fake driver's licence you made at home.
Originally Posted by König
(Post 17187059)
Again, your equivalence is flawed. Matricula consular card is not illegal - it might be completely useless, but it is not illegal. Making a fake driving licence at home and presenting it to the police is very much illegal. Do you see the difference?
|
Originally Posted by alexb133
(Post 17185171)
Yes they are required by law to report suspicious illegal activity to law enforcement.. While they themselves are not peace officers, that doesn't mean they "have no business trying to determine whether something they see is drugs".
If they see a gun, then sure. Big difference.
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 17187291)
That's who they would call. A BP, ICE or regular CBP officer would be the one to respond.
|
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17183898)
Its not "snitching"; its due diligence.
What the TSA could do is (1) ask the passenger to present alternate identification that meets TSA standards or (2) allow the passenger to attempt the identification verification procedures for those without IDs. If (1) and (2) above fail, then the TSA could infom the passenger that he cannot be cleared, but he may return with acceptable identification. The passenger walks away, and the TSA has done its job by keeping the person out of the secure area (save ID debate for another thread, please). But the TSA wants to go above and beyond-- not just turn someone without valid identification away, but call LE to investigate what they believe might be illegal. That's snitching, not due diligence as the only diligence due is making sure TSA security procedures are complied with.
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17183898)
You are correct, having the card and attempting to use it is not illegal (as far as I know, heck as of 2002/3 about a dozen states allowed people to use these cards to get drivers license).
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17183898)
But Section 8 USC 1324 makes it a crime, when you reasonably suspect someone of being illegal, to give them aid.
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17183898)
I and other TSOs must report it to a LEO (actually contact a STSO, who upon verifying what we have seen, contact a LEO).
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17183898)
You can argue all you want, but it is reasonable for me to suspect that only those who are here illegally will have and use this card (take the person who posted the question that started the current conversation).
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17183898)
Now, you may not like this, but there it is. Yes, TSA will contact a LEO.
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17183898)
We are required to by law, as it is VERY reasonable to suspect this person is an illegal immigrant.
|
In before the long over due move to the other safety forum if not omni pr. That practical answer to question of the thread remains no for all the reasons discussed. Arguing that the tsa should or should not go beyond its mandate seems pointless. The tsa does, so illegals should avoid commercial aviation.
|
Originally Posted by alexb133
(Post 17185171)
Yes they are required by law to report suspicious illegal activity to law enforcement.. While they themselves are not peace officers, that doesn't mean they "have no business trying to determine whether something they see is drugs".
No such law requires this - it's an administrative policy which should be quashed..and no, they have absolutely no business conducting any investigation outside the scope of their search, specifically related to aviation security. |
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 17185337)
Even if you called a LEO, what could he/she do? They cannot investigate someone's immigration status based on mere suspicion that they are an illegal immigrant. Arizona just passed a law trying to give them the authority to do so, but it was struck down in court (and is being appealed). So assuming that the Supreme Court doesn't overturn that ruling, law enforcement cannot investigate anyone's immigration status because of a "suspicion", no matter how "reasonable" it is. The person who presented a Matricula Consular at the checkpoint would be free to turn around and leave, and neither the TSA nor local PD could detain them.
That's my understanding of the law, but we all know that TSA and police don't always follow the laws. Does anyone have an actual example of an illegal immigrant trying to go through a checkpoint? |
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 17188228)
Not really; "due diligence" implies that some sort of "diligence" is actually "due".
What the TSA could do is (1) ask the passenger to present alternate identification that meets TSA standards or (2) allow the passenger to attempt the identification verification procedures for those without IDs. If (1) and (2) above fail, then the TSA could infom the passenger that he cannot be cleared, but he may return with acceptable identification. The passenger walks away, and the TSA has done its job by keeping the person out of the secure area (save ID debate for another thread, please). But the TSA wants to go above and beyond-- not just turn someone without valid identification away, but call LE to investigate what they believe might be illegal. That's snitching, not due diligence as the only diligence due is making sure TSA security procedures are complied with. None do anymore, thank god. Just to be clear, turning someone away from a checkpoint without reporting anything does not violate 8 USC 1324. (I know that it might seem like it would meet the standards for the "conceals, harbors, or shields from detection" part, but it doesn't. The law recognizes a difference between turning a blind eye to something illegal and actually participating in it and concealing it or shielding it from detection). By LEO, you mean CBP/BP/ICE, not the local law, right? (Maybe it varies by airport based on 287g local law and presence of CBP)? I think it is reasonable to suspect that (but I'm not 100% sure of that as a legal matter). I would say that presentation of a Matricula Consular is reasonable suspicion for an authorized individual to investigate immigration status. If the person is not detained and their property not detained including not detaining the Matricula Consular card while LE is called, then I have no legal problem with it. If the person is told to remain, or the card is retained by the TSA while waiting for LE, then I do have a problem with it. As long as the person is free to go then there I have no legal problem with calling LE. You are not required by law to do so simply because turning a blind eye to something is not the same as concealing it or shielding it from detection. (The law does not place an affirmative burden to report, just not to help). |
Originally Posted by bocastephen
(Post 17198827)
Nonsense.
No such law requires this - it's an administrative policy which should be quashed..and no, they have absolutely no business conducting any investigation outside the scope of their search, specifically related to aviation security. But we are required to report any illegal activity we may encounter. Our courts have ruled that Security Directives/Management Directives have the same force as law, and until those are changed TSA employees are required to report such activities. To fail to do so could result in termination, which would be upheld by any Disciplinary Review Board. Again, if you wish this changed, then our system of courts need to rule otherwise on SD/MD, and/or TSA administrators need to issue new SD/MD. Now, do you honestly think either will actually happen? Nope, neither do I; so reporting any illegal activity is REQUIRED by TSA staff. |
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 17188228)
You are not required by law to do so simply because turning a blind eye to something is not the same as concealing it or shielding it from detection. (The law does not place an affirmative burden to report, just not to help).
As I noted above, we ARE required to report such suspected illegal activity, and to be honestly blunt, arguing about it here will not change that. What directs us to do so has the force of law, and to do otherwise is to face termination. If you do not like such policies, I honestly suggest attempting to have them changed. |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17199991)
As I noted above, we ARE required to report such suspected illegal activity, and to be honestly blunt, arguing about it here will not change that. What directs us to do so has the force of law, and to do otherwise is to face termination. If you do not like such policies, I honestly suggest attempting to have them changed.
|
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17199912)
The passenger is not detained, nor is his property held, by TSA. Until the LEO arrives, they can leave.
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17199991)
As I noted above, we ARE required to report such suspected illegal activity, and to be honestly blunt, arguing about it here will not change that. What directs us to do so has the force of law, and to do otherwise is to face termination.
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17199991)
If you do not like such policies, I honestly suggest attempting to have them changed.
For me, it is enough to know that passengers are not detained nor property retained by the TSA while awaiting LE-- and that this is not someting I have to worry about nor anyone I know. |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17199869)
If we call a LEO, what the LEO does, if they suspect the person is "illegal", is call ICE and/or CBP. The LEO does not check the pesrons immigration status. How do I know this- I have seen it happen.
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17199912)
And we contact a LEO, and the LEO can decide to contact ICE and/or CBP (they usually contact CBP, as they are more often located specifically on airport grounds and are the "first responders", so to say, in such a situation, but ICE is contacted and they will actually take control of the person). The passenger is not detained, nor is his property held, by TSA. Until the LEO arrives, they can leave.
Maybe the TSA at certain stations notify CBP directly? Is this possible?
Originally Posted by mre5765
(Post 17197829)
In beforem the lomg over due move to the other safety forum if not omni pr. That practical answer to quetion of the thread remains no for all the reasons discussed.
Originally Posted by mre5765
(Post 17197829)
Arguing that the tsa should or should not go beyond its mandate seem pointless.
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17199912)
And I wonder at the legal differences between what you are describing in Arizona, where someone encounters a LEO on the street, so to say, and at a federalized checkpoint.
|
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17199912)
And we contact a LEO, and the LEO can decide to contact ICE and/or CBP (they usually contact CBP, as they are more often located specifically on airport grounds and are the "first responders", so to say, in such a situation, but ICE is contacted and they will actually take control of the person). The passenger is not detained, nor is his property held, by TSA. Until the LEO arrives, they can leave.
|
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 17200351)
Is the passenger aware of that? Does CBP or ICE read them their Miranda rights before asking questions concerning their immigration status? If not, any evidence collected should not be admissable.
|
Originally Posted by Always Flyin
(Post 17200443)
Where is the custodial interrogation that invokes Miranda? Are you aware that law enforcement is not required to read the Miranda warning to everyone they speak to?
|
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 17200206)
I
Maybe the TSA at certain stations notify CBP directly? Is this possible? |
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 17201265)
They are not required to read the Miranda warning to anyone, but they are unable to use evidence gathered from an interrogation if they don't.
I had a very interesting encounter with a group of current and former federal prosecutors earlier this week with an extensive history of backing up DHS activities. It was informative in more than one way. ICE's priority, by the way, is currently said to be directed at the segment of foreigners who have undocumented legal presence status in the US with a documented criminal history in the US. I won't even hazard a guess on why the TSA would try to distract the relevant border control elements of DHS from focusing upon those with a documented criminal history. |
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 17201265)
They are not required to read the Miranda warning to anyone, but they are unable to use evidence gathered from an interrogation if they don't. For example, if CBP asks an un-Mirandized person "are you a US citizen" and "do you have a visa", and then determine that the person is an illegal immigrant, that information cannot be used in court. That is my understanding, but those of you who are lawyers feel free to clarify/correct me.
Note the buzzwords, "custodial interrogation." |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 17201324)
Don't count on that. Evidence which may not be admissible in a court on a criminal prosecution matter may be used in administrative proceedings.
|
Originally Posted by Always Flyin
(Post 17202023)
Ok. You are wrong.
Note the buzzwords, "custodial interrogation." Yarborough v. Alvarado - 541 U.S. 652 (2004) I would argue that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave if being interrogated by CBP officials at an airport. |
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 17200139)
Ok, so not law, but administrative policy. That's what I was getting at. While the difference might seem trivial in a practical sense, there is a legal distinction. Exactly-- it is a policy. One thing about administrative policy, as opposed to law, is that it can be changed without an act of Congress. Does my distinction between policy and law make a little more sense now? And we both know this policy will not change. For the most part, no politician wants it to change, and no administration will want it to change. You may not like that, but what I just wrote is true. |
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 17200351)
Is the passenger aware of that? Does CBP or ICE read them their Miranda rights before asking questions concerning their immigration status? If not, any evidence collected should not be admissable.
Not trying to be rude, but ask CBP and/or ICE. Once they take over, we are out of it. |
Originally Posted by Pesky Monkey
(Post 17200023)
And we see sooooooo many TSO's being terminated. :rolleyes:
More than you would think. |
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 17202378)
Custody is determined by two factors: (1) the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, and (2) given those circumstances, whether a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the interrogation and leave.
Yarborough v. Alvarado - 541 U.S. 652 (2004) I would argue that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave if being interrogated by CBP officials at an airport. Miranda plays big on TV dramas; not so much in real life. |
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 17202353)
That is a good point, but the results of administrative proceedings can always be appealed to a "real" court where the evidence would no longer be admissable.
Most CBP interactions with passengers never involve Miranda warnings, and such interactions can result in material (verbal and/or written) that prosecutors can use to pursue at their discretion. |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17202530)
:rolleyes:
More than you would think. The TSA is an employment leviathan. Given the government is pushing to increase taxation on air travel in order to "better" fund the TSA, it's pretty clear that cutting down employment levels in the TSA has taken a relative back seat to increasing the amount of money the government collects for the TSA. |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17202527)
I was never confused about the distinction between law and administrative policy - but I also understand how our legal system holds SD/MD; they have the same force as law; they force us to report suspected illegal activity. Simple as that.
|
Originally Posted by Always Flyin
(Post 17202730)
I will note you did not cite a case that agrees with you.
Miranda plays big on TV dramas; not so much in real life. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 17203368)
Don't count on that. Do you really think it would be safe for an individual to willfully communicate false information to federal law enforcement personnel in circumstances where the individual had not been read a Miranda warning? There are plenty of circumstances where evidence obtained without any Miranda warning gets used in administrative and even some criminal proceedings. That something can be appealed doesn't mean that the appeal will succeed. When it comes to things like border control, a lot of appeals may fail because the government and its apologists have taken the position that people crossing borders have less rights than others. I wish it weren't that way, but it is that way anyway.
Most CBP interactions with passengers never involve Miranda warnings, and such interactions can result in material (verbal and/or written) that prosecutors can use to pursue at their discretion. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 17203428)
That's wishful thinking that you are advocating.
The TSA is an employment leviathan. Given the government is pushing to increase taxation on air travel in order to "better" fund the TSA, it's pretty clear that cutting down employment levels in the TSA has taken a relative back seat to increasing the amount of money the government collects for the TSA. I did not say TSA employees a vast amount of people, nor too many people. But the fact is TSA does fire more people than you would think, or is believed here. We have a database, where the DRB post all those who appeal being dismissed from TSA (names removed), which serves as a guide for management (and employees) and proper disciplinary procedure. I can tell you, TSA does terminate its fair share of employees. Even if those here chose to believe otherwise. |
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 17204138)
When you cite a statute in a thread and then in subsequent posts discuss what the "law" requires, I don't think it was unreasonable for me to think that you were refering back to the statute you previously cited.
|
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 17206326)
That's not how it's supposed to be. It may happen that way because illegal immigrants don't tend to have the best lawyers, but a good lawyer should be able to get evidence thrown out in this situation.
|
Originally Posted by Always Flyin
(Post 17206674)
You may want to educate yourself more fully on how and when Miranda has been applied by the courts. Your conclusions are erroneous and insupportable.
If you think I'm mistaken, wouldn't it be appropriate to provide an explanation, rather than a snappy "you're wrong, go educate yourself" response? |
Please keep your replies to practical responses
The question is, "can 'illegal' immigrants fly with picture ID"
The place for discussion of these issues is in...Discussion and debate forum. thanks squeakr co mod TS/S Practical Issues |
Originally Posted by cbn42
(Post 17209325)
Why is that?
If you think I'm mistaken, wouldn't it be appropriate to provide an explanation, rather than a snappy "you're wrong, go educate yourself" response? You argue that doesn't apply if the person thinks they are unable to leave. You stated the basic premise without looking at the facts of when courts have found a person reasonably believed they can't leave and you went on to claim that a "good" lawyer can get the evidence suppressed. Those situations, prior to an arrest being made, are actually rather limited. The cases state there must be objective grounds for reasonably believing you are unable to leave (e.g., you are in handcuffs sitting in the back of a police car). I pointed out that Miranda is basically a non-issue in most of the real world scenarios and that the facts presented here do not implicate Miranda. At squeakr's request, I am done with this thread. Feel free to start it up elsewhere--after you do some research, please. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:39 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.