Can a undocumented person travel within the U.S?
 

Alright kids,

I got a friend, whom happens to have a drives license, but he's undocumented. he got his license from IDAHO, they allow immigrants resident of their state get an State Issued Drives License.

So, can he use that to travel to NJ this summer with me?
Do they check his legal status or something? Or is he safe to travel?

P.S that ID is state issued id, so that means its a Gov-Issued ID.

Any feedback?


Thanks!
---Keep it real----

I'm not an expert here for traveling, but I always thought traveling in the United States did not require you to carry a passport or ID as your not passing across any boarders into another country. Your just passing into another state?

I'll let another FT'er respond that's the best I can think of.

Yes, we are going to New York!!! PARTY....but first he's got to get this stuff fixed. I really dont want to drive there from Idaho.

What about this thing call Real-ID benchmark?!
This is frustrating... :mad:

I believe they should be fine with a valid drivers license.

State issued driver's license is fine. However, the traveler should leave all evidence of being a non-U.S. citizen at home. Otherwise, if for some reason the traveler gets a secondary and the TSA finds evidence that the traveler is an illegal alien, he will be turned over to law enforcement.

See: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...ml#post9605187

That's weird... Here's a quote from the Idaho DMV:

http://www.itd.idaho.gov/dmv/DriverS...ense_facts.htm

If your friend bought a fake ID, he will be caught and reported.

As far as I understand it, there would no requirement to prove to anyone that he is legally in the country in order to fly from Idaho to New Jersey. They would simply present their ID at the security checkpoint and be on their way. That being said, your friend is breaking the law by being in this country illegally and could face consequences if they are stopped by law enforcement for some other reason.

No, it was not FAKE ID....he really got it. When you get over there, it says you need a SSN but you sing a thing, where it allows you to get one.

He has a clean record, no criminal background and hes only 19years old, doesnt look mexican or illegal.
All he needs is his Drives License and thats it than?

If it is a real, valid Idaho DL, all he needs is that. They will see him as a normal passenger, nothing special.

He should leave his passport and any documentation about his status or country of birth/citizenship at home.

(He should not fly out of Buffalo, NY, by the way. Don't worry about the "Real ID benchmark" thing-- ID's from all 50 states are valid for the time being).

Why not fly from Buffalo NY?

Because that airport is notorious for checking pax passport and papers (random occassions).

Interesting! :)
I think we are good to go than!!
I hope ill be fun! This would be his first time, my first time and my girl-friend first time!

your friend will be fine as long as they do not get into any situation where someone (i.e. a leo) would have to run the d/l. if that happens, all bets are off as even if the d/s is valid, legal status could (n.b. could be) be determined but simply going to an airport and getting on a plane would not be a problem as long as the d/l is not fake as then the tdc's super duper black light would detect it and thus bring out the calling over of a leo

He certainly shouldn't, unless he wants to be the test case that possibly overturns Martinez-Fuerte, or perhaps strengthens the freedom-loving side of Brignoni-Ponce. Or screws us all and ends up creating a Supreme Court stamp of approval for papers please.

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.:p

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

:D

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. :rolleyes:

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

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! :p

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.

"Just part of the uniform".

Because we don't have "state police" roaming the airports with machine guns and heavy body armor. Apparently this doesn't bother you, but a CBP Officer with a gun does. :confused:

TSA's airline passenger identification policies (2010-02-16)
 

Best we can tell, he doesn't even need that. Think about it: Why should someone need to show his papers just to travel from one state to another within the United States? TSA seems to want to convince people doing so is a requirement when it's really optional.

Showing ID to TSA at an airport just gets you a less-thorough search and helps you avoid questioning. If you're in a hurry or trying to smuggle a weapon onto an airplane, then it's best to show ID. Since your friend will probably want to avoid scrutiny, it might be best for him to show ID even though he need not do so.

Following is what I've been able to find out about TSA's policies regarding airline passenger identification (last updated 2010-02-16):

What are the rules concerning airline passenger identification by TSA?

Although TSA refuses to publish all the rules they require passengers to follow at airport checkpoints, from what we can distill from TSA press releases, heavily-redacted information obtained via FOIA requests, TSA blog posts, and other information they publish on the Web, it's relatively clear that your boarding pass is all the documentation that's ever required for domestic flights. It seems that passengers are not required to present documentation of their identities to TSA staff, and that doing so is not a condition of crossing the TSA checkpoint.

TSA won't publish the rules we're supposed to follow. So what do we know about their I.D. policies?

According to a 2008 press release from TSA, TSA's airport passenger identification policy changed on June 21, 2008, but "showing I.D." was seemingly not required before and is seemingly not required now.

Prior to June 21, 2008

Before June 21, 2008, the situation seemed to be: In order to proceed to the "secure area" of an airport after being stopped at a TSA barricade, each passenger must submit to a pat-down and search for metallic objects using a hand-held metal detector, along with a hand-searching of any carry-on baggage, unless he presents documentation of his identity (i.e., unless he "shows I.D."), in which case he must submit only to a search for metallic objects on his person via walk-through metal detector and search of any carry-on baggage using an X-ray machine.

In other words: back then, showing I.D. simply got you a less-thorough search than you'd otherwise receive.

Now

Beginning June 21, 2008, the situation seems to be: Each passenger still has the option of showing I.D. and participating in the less-thorough searches (walk-through metal detector and X-raying of carry-ons), but the alternative now involves not only being thoroughly searched for dangerous items, but also identifying oneself verbally and participating in an interrogation intended to verify one's identity (via phone call from Homeland Security headquarters). Chillingly, it seems from the aforementioned TSA press release that this alternative also requires that someone be "cooperative with officers". What that cooperation entails is not defined.

Initial reports from TSA indicated that while people who claimed that their government-issued I.D. card was misplaced or stolen would be allowed to take the alternate route through the checkpoint (with the questioning), those who willfully refused to show their papers would be barred from proceeding. It's unclear whether or not this is still the case, or if it was ever the case, as TSA's initial press release seems, based on information received from TSA via Freedom of Information Act request, to have been inaccurate.

Summary of present situation and how to exploit it

In short, best we can tell, complying with TSA's "papers, please!" request is not necessary in order to fly domestically, it's simply a way to avoid the hassle of a thorough search for dangerous items, the hassle of providing convincing information in support of your claim to be who you say you are, and having to cooperate with TSA airport staff in any manner they see fit.

This is a great system for people who wish to do harm in airports or on airplanes, since getting a falsified identification document (i.e., a "fake I.D.") is relatively simple, and presentation of one almost guarantees that TSA staff will look at someone with less scrutiny, making it easier for him to take weapons, explosives, or incendiaries past the security checkpoint. Even if TSA could detect such fraud with perfect accuracy, using the Carnival Booth Algorithm, terrorists can probe an identity-based security system like TSA's by sending a number of people on harmless trips through the system, noting who is flagged for extra searches and who isn't. Then they can send those who aren't flagged -- people who almost certainly will get through security with a less-thorough search -- on terrorist missions.

Why does TSA want to identify us? What's wrong with them doing so?

This isn't about your safety. It's about control -- a few people's control over the rest of us.

The primary reason that TSA wants to know who you are is their desire to restrict people's movement based on Homeland Security blacklists. As did every government that has imposed totalitarian rules, TSA repeatedly tells us that their freedom-restricting policies are about safety, security, and rooting out subversives. Of course, this policy is really about extra-judicial punishment, allowing our executive branch of government to sidestep our judicial branch and punish someone for any reason or no reason at all. That's not the way things are supposed to work in the United States. It's ripe for abuse, and it's an infringement on our freedom.

For more on showing I.D. in the general sense, please see the Identity Project's "What's Wrong With Showing I.D.?" page.

Previous discussion on FlyerTalk

For more on TSA airport I.D. policies, see also the following FT threads (the fifth of which is what brought me to FlyerTalk for the first time; I'm the subject of that April 8, 2008, article on the front page of the Kansas City Star):

• 2007-02-19: No ID Passenger threatened by police at DCA
• 2007-03-27: DCA Lawyer responds: You must show ID
• 2007-09-07: Legal Advice, forced to show ID (6 months ago)
• 2007-09-06: Your right to fly without ID (proof at last)
• 2008-04-08: Article:No ID needed to board plane
• 2008-05-01: new info from TSA re: airlines requesting ID
• 2008-05-01: does the law/courts say ID is not required to...
• 2008-06-06: Starting June 21: Refuse to Show ID, No Entry to Sterile Area
• 2008-06-09: Actually, it looks like you can still fly without ID
• 2008-06-11: TSA blog addresses the new airport ID rule
• 2008-06-20: TSA says new airport ID rule is not about control
• 2008-06-22: No ID - Reports from the Field
• 2008-06-23: Forget ID after 6/21: expect invasive ?s including political affiliation
• 2008-06-24: ACLU Blasts TSA's Political Party ID check questions
• 2008-11-19: Are you kidding me: No ID
• 2009-05-01: What is the ID Policy?
• 2009-05-27: TSA SOP re: airport ID requirements provided to IDP via FOIA request
• 2009-07-20: Flying with expired license
• 2009-07-28: Do kids with seats (age 2-10) need ID?
• 2009-08-04: Expired Drivers licence + Temporary One -Can I fly?
• 2009-08-10: Has anyone had a problem without photo ID at the gate of Jetblue at JFK and MCO?
• 2009-10-30: How many times do I show my BP and ID at the checkpoint?
• 2009-11-09: Can I travel with my expired drivers license as ID?
• 2009-11-16: Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
• 2009-11-21: What happens if an ID is lost?
• 2009-11-22: No longer using passport as ID for TSA - here's why
• 2009-11-28: Expired ID
• 2009-11-30: Damaged NY State License
• 2009-12-08: Flying with expired id or no id
• 2009-12-20: College ID or Expired License for Check-in ID
• 2010-01-29: Great Safety Screening at EWR!!!
• 2010-02-04: Passport card not accepted by TSA yesterday
• 2010-02-06: Getting selected anyway, should I refuse to show ID?
• 2010-02-15: Flying Without ID & TSA @ SFO
• 2010-02-18: TSA requires Passport on Intl Flights?
• 2010-03-29: Can I travel with my expired drivers license as ID?
• 2010-04-11: ID required for unaccompanied minor?
• 2010-04-12: Question about using a DL at a checkpoint
• 2010-04-12: Costco card as ID
• 2010-05-25: Temporary New York license question

These posts are getting old-- we know how you feel on the topic . . . :o

I'm not trying to express my opinion (other than the general idea that TSA's ID policies are ridiculous), but to correct seemingly mistaken beliefs about TSA policies. I welcome any suggestions for more effective ways to do so. I wish other people would speak up when someone here says showing ID to TSA is required. Despite my efforts to counter misinformation, this comes up about once per month in this forum. Maybe the moderators would consider stickying an "Airline passengers are not required to show ID at TSA airport checkpoints" thread.

'kay. Fair enough.

Make a thread with that as the first post and link that thread instead of pasting that whole block every time the issue comes up. My opinion.

Two points to make:

1. Yes, everyone has been screened before getting on a commercial airliner en route to the USA. But what is the quality of that screening? Here is just one example of poor screening.

2. What about checked luggage?

I have no strong opinion on the issue, but I can certainly understand the argument in favour. Honestly, the extra weight on every officer's waist for the next 25 years is bound to do more collective damage than anyone at an airport with a gun ever will (I hope).

Good point!

Yeah because even at Airports that have "State Police" with guns (and of the list I mentioned, only SIN comes to mind... can't remember if there were any security patrol's at HKG), there numbers are nowhere near the same as the number of CBP officers, and I am not required to interact with them.

Get it?

SIN has one of the most professional border guards in the planet both in appearance and conduct. Even comparing them with the CBP would be an insult!

You must not get to Europe very often...hmm, CDG, BRU, AMS, FCO, FRA, MUC, and even occasionally LHR, to name a few. To be fair, I've seen the same at a few US airports when they ramp up security from time to time. True, you aren't required to interact with them unless you do something contrary to their laws :D

TB