14 ms·

What happens when you refuse to answer a passport control officer's questions

463 points by abraham 16y ago

ripostee 16y ago
If nothing else, it shows that the system works. A right that is not able to be exercised in a pragmatic manner is almost as bad as not having the right at all.
mjgoins 16y ago
The rights the author describes his exercise of can be swept away with the stroke of a pen, and once that happens, they won't be coming back.
- mrtron 16y ago
  I think we should applaud someone for having the courage to stand up for their basic rights. I don't think you should always take the path of least resistance.
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  All the more reason to exercise them as fervently as possible.
- CGamesPlay 16y ago
  "The stroke of a pen" in the United States' case involves a majority vote in the Senate and agreement by the President (or else a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate). This is of course significantly more difficult to attain than many other pen strokes. (I suspect I agree with your sentiment, but your post is vague on your actual opinion of the matter.)
  - _delirium 16y ago
    It's not clear what you'd do with the people if you did remove an unconditional right to reentry, either. If someone has only one nationality, and that country won't allow them in, then they become effectively stateless, which is a mess, since international law generally assumes that people have nationalities. Then someone like the UN has to try to figure out where they can be sent.
    - CGamesPlay 16y ago
      I actually assumed the right we were talking about was the right to remain silent, which would require a constitutional amendment to repeal. I am not so sure about the right to reenter one's own country.
  - adammichaelc 16y ago
    This isn't quite true anymore. Over the last 2 centuries the President has little-by-little become more like a King. What I mean by that is that he has gained more powers that an absolute authority, like a King, would have. For example, the President has the power to write executive orders, which have the effect of law. While true that these orders can be challenged by congress, they normally aren't likely due to human nature (it's easier to say no to an idea than to stop somebody who has momentum). The end result of this is that the President now has the power to basically write laws. If he is not happy with Congress's opinion, he can take matters into his own hands. On most issues he gives deference to the law-making body's authority, but the power is always in his hands to act; in other words politically and practically he is held in check on most issues by Congress and is obviously not a King (ie he can't act unilaterally), but as time passes he gets more of the power that a King would have. Edited for clarity
- tomjen3 16y ago
  No they won't, but if you actually use them, they are not going to disappear.
acabal 16y ago
On one hand I agree that it's important to stand up for your rights, even it might seem like a trivial thing to argue at the time. Especially with how the TSA/Border control is evolving into less of a means of security than into an interrogation theater, it's important for us to know just how far an officer can legally question/search us and not to let them overstep those bounds. Once those bounds are crossed, it's hard (impossible?) to go back. On the other hand, the guy kind of acted like a jerk. He could have done the same thing without seeming so short and unfriendly. Even the most power-mad officers are still people with a basic job to do. Edit: having read his follow-up post, he makes some good points on the politeness issue. I guess I'm just happy there are people like him to have to the balls (and time to spare) to remind enforcers that they too must follow the law, even if it means a huge inconvenience for him.
- mjgoins 16y ago
  He addresses the politeness issue in the follow up by saying, quite rightly: To the authoritarian mind, there are only two responses to a demand: submission or defiance, and anything less than total submission is defiance.
  - bonaldi 16y ago
    Nonetheless, to the human mind, there are plenty of shades of grey. If you're trying to convince (both them and the blog-reading public), you'd do well not to act as if everything's black and white. see also: Stallman.
    - thaumaturgy 16y ago
      One of my favorite quotes: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw) Stallman's complete and total unwillingness to bend at all occasionally grates on my nerves. I am also grateful for it.
  - acabal 16y ago
noonespecial 16y ago
I simply provide a non-answer. I used to say "business" but lately they've been asking 5 minutes worth of follow-up questions about what type of business I'm in and where in the visited country I conducted this business and with whom. Now I say "to visit friends and family". This answer ends the questions instantly. I haven't gotten a follow-up yet. They seem to have a checkbox for this answer and that's that. I'm glad that there are guys out there doing this sort of thing. Its important. But for me, who just wants to get through as quickly as possible, I try to remember that even though its interface is human beings, its really just a poorly constructed machine. Give it the right tokens and the turnstile spins.
- mrtron 16y ago
  I think lying about your activities can get you into some actual trouble - so this could be risky advice if they follow up on who you were visting.
  - mattmanser 16y ago
    In fact he specifically mentions that in the follow up point. What is extremely worrying is the comment that 'they have a checkbox for that'. What the hell are they doing recording the reasons for movement of law abiding citizens?
    - mrtron 16y ago
      He mentions anecdotal evidence that they haven't followed up with him on that issue. Doesn't mean lying to them isn't problematic.
    - cperciva 16y ago
      What the hell are they doing recording the reasons for movement of law abiding citizens? They don't know that you're law-abiding, for one thing. Law enforcement agencies routinely record information which is volunteered to them.
      - 16y ago
lionhearted 16y ago
Contrarian viewpoint - you're dealing with humans with emotions, and they deserve some respect on that human level. If you want to take a moral stand against encroachment of civil liberties, I respect that. But why not be polite? "I apologize, sir, but I'm morally opposed to answering questions beyond what I have to. I'll comply with the legal requirements to enter the country, but I don't answer questions I'm not legally required to on principal - I think it's no good." You're much less likely to have trouble that way, and it explains why you're doing what you're doing, which makes it more likely to have a positive impact and get the officers to re-think why they're doing their job and what it means. Stonewalling them is your legal right, fine, but it seems to be a sub-optimal choice on a principals/ethics level and on a practical level. Now before anyone replies, "You shouldn't have to bow and scrape to get into your own country" - yes I agree with you, but being rude doesn't accomplish anything additional than stating your principals politely.
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  This video is germain to this conversation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc It is unfortunate that the power-balance has become so one-sided that we actively worry about speaking to the police in case they decide to make your life difficult.
  - edanm 16y ago
    I was about to post this myself. Here's my problem: theoretically, the video makes sense. I shouldn't every speak to the police. Practically, if I'm pulled over for a speeding ticket, saying "I refuse to speak" is going to get me in a lot more trouble than just playing along.
    - ugh 16y ago
      Be pragmatic and polite and don’t answer questions. If they ask you whether you know why they stopped you simply say “No, why?” (For the love of goodness, don’t admit that you were doing something wrong or even worse say you didn’t do anything wrong when you did.) If they ask you for ID provide them with one. It doesn’t seem that they would ask you any more questions, they can just hand you over the ticket. If they really do continue asking questions you can just politely say that you would rather not answer any more questions. That’s behavior very much consistent with the video.
nader 16y ago
I thought I had problems when travelling to San Francisco's Web 2.0 Expo this year but I never thought customs officers would make you as US Citizen problems. Crazy!
- randallsquared 16y ago
  US citizens may have more to worry about, actually, since the most they're likely to do to a non-citizen is refuse entry, but a citizen could easily wind up in jail for years for, in the recollection of the officer, lying to a federal officer. That was all Martha Stewart was convicted of, after all.
abraham 16y ago
I wonder how "personal reasons" would have gone over. Nondescript and a lot of people will assume sensitive personal reasons and not ask questions.
- ghshephard 16y ago
  I tried that once when returning to Canada. Resulted in a full (and _very, very detailed) search of my luggage. Would recommend not doing so unless you have an extra 30-45 minutes.
  - arethuza 16y ago
    I had never realized that US nationals and Canadians got that grief when they got home - I thought it was reserved for foreigners trying to gain entry. I don't think I've ever been asked anything by anyone when returning to the UK - you just hand across your passport they have a quick look (possibly a scan) and they hand it back.
    - ghshephard 16y ago
      To be clear - as a Canadian, I only get hassled when returning to Canada. When entering the United States on my TN (which I do 6-10 times a year), I normally get waived on through, while about 10% of the time I get asked "Where are you working."
    - JshWright 16y ago
      I've travelled internationally maybe a dozen times in my life. I've never once had an issue on re-entering the country. In fact, I've had a grand total of two "incidents" while traveling: 1) A security agent in Amsterdam gave me some (understandable) stern looks because my passport had gone through the wash, and was very much worse for the wear. 2) In Warsaw, I misunderstood a security agent and ended up getting a large man with a gun mildly excited (which in turn got me a little excited...). Tip: If a security screener says something in a language you don't understand and waves towards your bag on the conveyor, don't just assume it means "Take your bag and and go," it might mean "Step away from the bag"
viraptor 16y ago
I really cannot figure out why he did that... Yes - freedom is cool in lots of situations. It's nice not to be detained without a reason, hit without a reason, denied entrance somewhere without a reason. This does not mean you should be a jerk to any staff member. They're asking questions - everyone knows they will. "I don't want to answer that" is way better than "None of your business" - it actually is their business. That's why they're there. Disagreeing with them is one thing, being rude to staff just because you have the right to is another. This makes me sad. There are so many ways and reasons to fight for freedom, but being rude to people following their standard job very near the useless end of that list... Nothing accomplished, some staff members annoyed, other passengers delayed. Rather childish. Also, he showed exactly how security works. They identified an angry / aggressive person, separated him from the crowd / put under observation, checked his bags for dangerous items. Maybe there's a reason to ask after all?
- ghshephard 16y ago
  His entire position is that, as an American Citizen, it really is none of their business what he was doing. Now that I think of it, shouldn't the job of Customs and Immigration be the following for returning American Citizens: A) Confirm that you are an American Citizen. B) Confirm that you are importing goods properly.
  - viraptor 16y ago
    I don't disagree that he does not have to answer questions. That does not mean security staff cannot ask questions. Do you think it really matters what you answer? Would anyone say "I was organising an attack on X.", "I was meeting with Russian mafia.", etc.? Most of the people will say "business", "family visit" or something similar anyways. The person who doesn't - whatever the reason - is the one to look at. Still - I see the reason why the questions are being asked. Even if you don't have to answer. I'd really like to see if you'd get the same treatment if you simply said "I do not want to answer this question, because I'm not required to." with a smile instead of being passive-agressive.
    - 16y ago
poutine 16y ago
I'm horrified at the amount of people calling him a douche and asshole in his blog comments for asserting his rights. I didn't think such submission to authority had become such an American trait.
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  Funny, I feel the exact opposite. I'm horrified that people would consider this asserting his rights rather than being a douche. Asserting your rights is not moving to the back of the bus because your skin is the wrong color. Not just telling some customs guy who gets paid $12 an hour to answer questions mandated by Congress the answer to some insignificant questions is just being a douche.
  - wrs 16y ago
    What is the "douche faction's" obsession with the pay of CBP officers? Is that somehow relevant to the discussion? He only dealt with the front-line officer for about two minutes anyway--in the back room he asked for a more-highly-paid superior and got one. So I'm assuming that makes you happier? BTW, do you have a citation for "mandated by Congress," or are you relying on the statement of the $12/hour officer for that?
    - mattmaroon 16y ago
      The point of the pay is to illustrate how far removed the person the author is being a douche to is from the people who make the policies. People in low level jobs like that are generally just trying to get through the day. Asserting that "The CBP goons want U.S. citizens to answer their questions as a ritualistic bow to their power" is douchebaggery in it's highest form, and it illustrates his mindset as that of man vs government. That statement alone, referring to decent people just trying to do their job as goons, qualifies the author as a douchebag. Also, how much power does a guy on a low-level government wage really feel they have? I'd bet anything they're told in their training that what they do is extremely important, that they are on the front lines in the war on terror. And they're also told that when someone refuses to cooperate (which, by the way, no terrorist would do) there's pretty much nothing they can do about it. They have what they feel is responsibility without power, which is a terrible situation for them to be in. I certainly don't know or care if those questions are mandated by Congress. (I don't find it hard to believe that they were though, or at least mandated by a group set up by Congress for that purpose.) It doesn't really matter. What I'm sure of is that they weren't mandated by the any of the people who questioned our author, especially if there are check boxes for them in some software. They probably weren't mandated by anyone who had ever met any of the author's victims, or even heard of them. And the people who mandated them will most likely never even hear of this guy or the handful of nutjobs like him.
itistoday 16y ago
This guy gets it, kudos to him! People like him are what keep authoritarian governments at bay, and inform the ignorant masses of their folly, who are all too eager to give up their rights. Well, CBP has no power over me. I am a law-abiding citizen, and, as such, I am the master, and the federal cops are my servants. They would do well to remember that. And: When it comes to rights, you don’t know in advance what battle will be important. But you do know, based on history and human nature, that a right undefended will shrivel and die. If you don’t fight for the small right, you won’t be in a position to assert the large right. Beautiful.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Federal cops are not his servants; they're our servants. There is a world of difference between those statements.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    'He' is part of 'us,' so why wouldn't that follow?
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Because "we" have interests as a society that do not necessarily intersect "his" interests.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        Fair enough.
ben1040 16y ago
The mention about the records they keep (agents discussing the author's history of not answering questions) got me wondering what CBP has in their files about me and my movements across the border. At one point I read people on Flyertalk discussing how they sent FOIA requests for the pertinent records, but what they got back had all the juicy stuff (officers notes, etc) redacted.
tptacek 16y ago
The inalienable right to re-entry as a citizen is an interesting point that I hadn't thought of before. I'm glad he went through all this drama so we could think about that. I worry about his notion of having an inalienable right not to answer questions, though. The limits to your rights at the nation's borders can be surprising. Can border police deny you entry into the country? It seems, on reflection, that they cannot. Can border police arrest you, detain you for long periods of time, and book you for crimes that you may in fact be convicted of? I worry that the answers to this question aren't as crisply aligned with this guy's libertarianism as he hopes.
- jodrellblank 16y ago
  his notion of having an inalienable right not to answer questions, though /His/ notion? Can border police arrest you, detain you for long periods of time, and book you for crimes that you may in fact be convicted of? I worry that the answers to this question aren't as crisply aligned with this guy's libertarianism as he hopes. He seems more the kind of person to make the answers align with his view, rather than hope they already do.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Throughout the United States, you have an almost unlimited right to be free from searches by law enforcement absent probable cause that can be demonstrated in court. Except: * This doesn't apply at the border. * Regardless of whether the police have a right to search you, anything you do to obstruct a police search can be used as the basis of an orthogonal criminal charge. Similarly, throughout the United States, you have an almost unrestricted right not to answer questions from law enforcement. I ask: * Accepting that the outcome of not cooperating cannot be denial of reentry, to what extent does this principle apply at the border? The right to be free of unreasonable search is at the core of the bill of rights, and the word "reasonable" seems to mean "all bets are off at the border". * Regardless of whether police have a right to question you, things you do to obstruct them may be the basis of orthogonal criminal charges. For instance, Terry stops, Hiibel, &c. Generally, as an avid civil liberties enthusiast with zero legal qualifications, my perception is that your rights are at their practical zenith in a courtroom, and at their nadir in a confrontation with on-duty law enforcement.
jhghjnmmn 16y ago
When I briefly worked for a "Three Letter Agency" we were told that the only answer we were allowed to give to any question like this to any of our own or foreign officials was "work of a confidential nature in the national interest" It works well if you can do it with a straight face!
- asmithmd1 16y ago
  That is great! I bet it works like a free pass if you match their notion of a NSA, CIA, NRO employee.
  - gjm11 16y ago
    I bet it works like a jail sentence[1] if they have some way of checking whether you actually are an employee of a three-letter agency and you aren't one. [1] Or a hefty fine, or some other variety of considerable nuisance.
    - asmithmd1 16y ago
      Why? What law do you think you are breaking by saying that? Adding jobs is in the national interest, right? You could be doing that by traveling.
    - lzw 16y ago
      You're not saying to whom the matter is confidential. My client work abroad is certainly confidential, though the US government may not care, the client does.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    I guess "unshaven hippie with long hair" isn't the best look to pull this off, huh? If I faked a military bearing would they assume I was one of those military intelligence types that doesn't shave and has long hair just to throw people off from thinking he's a military intelligence type?
mhd 16y ago
Quick question from a foreigner: Did they ask him that because he went to China, or does this happen for other "less suspicious" nations (France, UK etc.), too?
- qwzybug 16y ago
  US CBP is always a pain in the ass. I never have as much trouble entering any foreign country as I do reentering my own. Ludicrous, really.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  I just recently came back from Japan. It was my first time leaving the country. Going into Japan was great, very straightforward, polite, and fast. I actually had a question; they ask "Where are you staying?" on the form, but I didn't know. I was meeting my girlfriend in-country, and she had made all of our reservations, and I forgot to ask her for a copy. The woman smiled and said "No problem, just write Tokyo" and that was it. Coming back into America was terrible. I did answer these questions, and the officer tried to imply that I had tripped up, and was getting in trouble. (I live in PA, but my ticket was back to LAX only.) Then, while walking through to the 'collect your baggage' part, another officer stopped me, told me to get in a different line, since I'd collected no checked baggage. I told him I didn't have any, his eyes narrowed, and he started asking me more questions. I was like "Dude, I'm a guy. I have this huge backpack. I was only gone a week. Why would I need a suitcase?" and after a few more questions finally let me go. I don't fly unless I absolutely have to. It's just not worth the hassle.
  - haberman 16y ago
    Counter-experience: I walked through customs with just a backpack after being in Europe for 2.5 weeks. Guy looks at me and says "you didn't check any bags?" and I responded "I travel light," with a bit of a grin on my face. He says "welcome home." It was a touching moment.
  - kareemm 16y ago
    I've heard US customs described as an additional penalty on Americans who travel abroad.
sudonim 16y ago
So, if I am to try this when I return from india (going for my friend's wedding and vacation), what would be the best response, word for word to refuse to answer questions? It seems people think his approach is rude.
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  Based on much of the discussion here, I'd definitely say that the only person that can give you the correct answer is an attorney that you trust. If you can't find such a person, then the next best answer would be to respond exactly as Paul Lukacs did, since he's a Los Angeles attorney (and author of a couple of articles in reason.com). Following any layman's advice is probably a good way to get yourself in trouble.
roboneal 16y ago
There is a difference between being a Citizen and a subject. You are not obligated to sit meekly while your rights are being nibbled at or outright violated by "people just doing their jobs".
Mz 16y ago
His position that "politeness would make no difference", combined with other remarks he has made, suggests to me he simply doesn't know how to be genuinely polite and respectful of others. He reminds me of a woman I am passingly acquainted with who insisted that when things began to go south in business negotiations and other social settings, there was nothing you could do to stop it. Well, maybe there was nothing she could do. That doesn't mean it can't be done. (From observation of her, her attitude seemed to bring a lot of her troubles to her. She was quite combative, high-handed and so on.) I'm all for not setting foot on the slippery slope. I am a firm believer that acting to protect your rights before there is a problem is the best policy. But assuming an adversarial relationship does not mean one needs to go out of their way to ensure that the relationship is as adversarial as possible.
wccrawford 16y ago
They didn't hold him for refusing to answer. They held him because he was suspicious. That's their job. When everything checked out and they couldn't find anything wrong, they had to let him go. He was only there for half an hour. 30 minutes. That's not an unreasonable time at all when you've done something suspicious like answer routine questions rudely. Don't get me wrong. I think our airport security is absolutely useless at this point. I haven't flown on a plane for a decade because I won't submit to that useless idiocy. (I might do so if it weren't useless, despite the 'freedoms' lost.)
- Hixie 16y ago
  30 minutes is less time than I've spent actually entering the country through that same airport.
mmaunder 16y ago
Way to go. The only way to be sure that we have certain rights is to exercise them. Thanks for inconveniencing yourself on our behalf. I'm inspired to do the same.
Emore 16y ago
Do you have any rights whatsoever, if you're a foreigner entering America?
- edanm 16y ago
  You obviously have some human rights. They can't (legally) harm you physically without any reason, afaik.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    You have all sorts of rights. The main one you don't have is the right to get into the country, and that's the only one which really matters. So definitely do not try this trick if you're a foreigner attempting to enter the US.
aneth 16y ago
I'm glad that some people assert rights that are a pain to assert most of the time, because it reminds everyone that they exist. However, this guy seem like kind of a jerk as well. It sounds like they largely treated him respectfully, and calling them "thugs" makes him sound like a misguided hippy.
rfrey 16y ago
I'm astonished at the number of folks who are sincere in their belief that politeness and respect make one immune from abuse at the border. The belief seems to be based on their own politeness and lack of hassles thus far. I crossed the border more than a hundred times over ten years with no difficulties whatsoever. I grew up in a police family and am unswervingly polite and respectful. That did not protect me from 12 hours of interrogation in a white room and a deportment (reason still undetermined and undisclosed: a Freedom of Information Act request brought a document 75% redacted) when I happened upon the wrong, bored CBP official. Just because you've affirmed the consequent a few dozen times doesn't mean politeness will help you.
- flatline 16y ago
  Politeness works fine with many people in many circustances, and it has bought me out of a few pinches. I've seen a cop's face go from suspicious anger to placidity from a smooth handling of their concerns. I'd wager that most of the time, politeness won't hurt and sometimes it will help. Sometimes though you're right, particularly with law enforcement, if someone is in a bad mood and on a power trip it will not make one iota of difference. What I took from this is to pay attention, there's no need to consistently clam up like this guy does, but remember it's an option because sometimes it may be necessary.
  - lzw 16y ago
    You're still chasing a red herring: By all accounts this guy was polite. You're using the word "politeness" to mean "absolutely subservient to the whims of authority". He WAS polite, but stood on his rights. Including the absolute right to silence, which he politely explained.
    - flatline 16y ago
      "absolutely subservient to the whims of authority" That's reading an awful lot into what I wrote. By the author's own language he appears to bear a grudge against the CBP, so while he sounds polite by his own account he clearly goes out of his way to prove a (valid) point. I don't really see a problem with, most of the time, answering that I was on a business trip and packed my own bags, nor should most people in a "polite society". I don't see how this is being subservient to anyone. Wouldn't a better policy be to assume no problem and only raise the issue if they raise it first? It's healthy for society to have people push back against the system but it's also in our best interest, overall, to have security and part of that security is making judgments based on how someone responds to simple questions.
gokhan 16y ago
The problem is, if lots of US citizens behave like him, we people from other nations will have a hard time (as if it's not already an unpleasant experience) entering US because officers will be pissed off and someone will pay for it.
jleyank 16y ago
While it might be strictly true that a US-ian can't be denied entry to the US, recall that there is no constitutional right to any particular mode of travel... One can "enter" the US in various foreign airports (Shannon, several in Canada) and doing a "nope, I'm not talkin'" gig will probably result in a "well, you ain't flyin' either". I also worry that being too hostile with one's baggage might get it blown up. Certainly get it inspected closely. Might not be too good for cameras, laptops and other storage media.
- jrockway 16y ago
  You watch too much TV.
randallsquared 16y ago
Ultimately, the cops let me go, because there was nothing they could do. In this particular instance it may have seemed this way, but if you continue, you will likely find out it's not really true. They'd just rather not go to the effort of doing what they can do. Enforcement is selective, so unless you think you can get a lot of attention in time to do you some good, it's best to pick your battles wisely.
- jseliger 16y ago
  "They'd just rather not go to the effort of doing what they can do." What do you think police can do? He cites case law that indicates police can't prevent you from re-entering the country.
  - randallsquared 16y ago
    If they're annoyed enough, they can find something you did do, and charge you for it. Depending on how visibly you live your life, this might be easy or difficult, but ultimately they can just "remember" something you said that you didn't say, and then you could go to jail. All this is chancy, since the jury, should it come to that, may be sympathetic to you, but if you're habitually confrontational, that might be less likely. Basically, the Martha Stewart conviction destroyed what remained of my faith in the "justice" system. Here was a woman who, in theory, had the deck stacked her way... money, fame, etc. What was she convicted of? Lying to a federal officer, not under oath, about not committing a crime that they couldn't convict her of in the first place. The conclusive evidence basically boiled down to one or more officers' word that she denied wrongdoing. Let me recap: if some police are determined to put you in jail, you can go to jail for lying to an officer, when you assert that you didn't commit a crime. They do not have to prove that you did commit the crime. Just saying you didn't do it is presumptively a lie, and a federal crime. If you give them reason to be mad at you, you're gambling with your freedom, no matter what you have or haven't done. Note that not talking to the police is not sufficient to save you from prosecution, since the vast majority could be considered guilty of misprision of felony -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000004----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000004----... -- which is itself a federal felony, so if someone tells you they saw a felony committed (possession, say) and you know they didn't report it, now you're committing a felony unless you report them.
cinimod 16y ago
And then we're wondering why it takes 2 hours to wait in the airport.
RuadhanMc 16y ago
I think it is a good thing that he refused to answer the questions -- I respect that. But I find his aggressive attitude ("But that’s a small price to pay to remind these thugs that their powers are limited and restricted.") and obsession with the master/slave relationship ("I am the master, and the federal cops are my servants") to be fairly off putting. It is not that he does not want master/slave relationships to exist, it is that he wants (nay, needs) always to be the master. He strikes me as the sort of person who would say something offensive just so that he could make a point about freedom of speech. The world I see is not viewed through the same prism of master/slave relationships. In my world I am the master of myself. I am no ones slave and no one is my slave. It is a happy place to be.
dawie 16y ago
I always answer their questions with silly vague answers. For example: Q: Why are you going to do in city X? A: Party Q: Party? A: and see some sites. Vague questions get vague answers.
dot-sean 16y ago
This is a hillarious post. An officer's job is more than push people around and show their powers over the rest of us. Imagine for a second that you are the officer instead. Your job may be to get certain information and determine if person may be hiding something. She asked you a question, not because she'll forward the details of your business trip to your competitor. Of course you could lie to her and she won't know or care any different. Her job is to guage whether you seem nervous, or deceptive. That's one way for them to figure out a. if you might be dangerous, or hiding something in your luggage like Drugs, weapons, bombs, rare endangered,illegal animals etc. We blamed a lot of these people for letting 9/11 hijackers in the US and on the planes on 9/11/2001, but idiots like yourself are making their jobs are lot harder. Believe it or not, no one can make a machine that can detect a terrorist or someone that is up to no good 100% of the time. Its human interaction that prevents such events, and only that. If every moron like yourself gives these officers a hard time, and they have to check EVERY bag, it would be impossible to do so. Chances are someone that deserves more attention, oh I don't know someone like a fucking terrorist, will slip by. You and most idiots that are giving you kudos in the comments are making things a lot worse. Just because you can be a dick, doesn't mean you should. There are a lot of things you can do legally to your wife and loved ones...but I bet you don't. Maybe treating police officers and customs officers and airport personnel with some respect, understanding why they might do things a certain way, would help us all. I hope EVERYBODY treats you like shit, legally, and because they CAN, and let's see you complain about how tough your fucking job is, numbnuts!
rakkhi 16y ago
Just awesome, hope your travel in future is without incident. I thought it was ridiculous that even in transit where you are actually not entering the US customs fingerprint all your fingers. I was very very tempted to refuse but in the end I was too scared that I would just miss my trip
mkramlich 16y ago
I'd file this under things which are unwise to do because they create more trouble for yourself than otherwise, with no real upside, only downside.
alex_h 16y ago
In the EU, airport authorities will refuse to stamp your EU passport, even if you ask them to (travel geek, I wanted the stamp). As an EU citizen you may not be denied entry to any EU country and stamping your passport would imply that they had the right to either allow or deny entry.
dotBen 16y ago
Regardless of whether its the CBP officer in the airport or a police officer on the street, the key friction point is that if everyone demands full exercise of their rights (ultimately, not to talk or interact with the officer, other than prove identity) it would be near-impossible for them to perform their function of catching criminals, terrorists, etc. Or, to put it another way, we EXPECT that people won't exercise their full rights as part of our expectation that the police and CPB officials are able to to carry out their job. Regardless of how you stand on the original issue of the OP, it's worth considering for a moment that our policing system relies, in the main, on people not up-holding their rights in order to succeed.
dotBen 16y ago
The wider issue here that I don't see anyone really addressing is why are US Citizens interviewed/interrogated (even casually, at the CBP desk) about their activities. I'm a British Citizen living in the US (so I'm mandated to fully answer all questions because I have no pre-governed right to entry into the US) but when I return home to UK they scan my passport and wave on me - no questions at all. Regardless of this individual case, as a wider issue I don't understand why people (US Citizens) accept as policy and expected MO that CPB routinely asks the level of questioning that they do to citizens.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
lutorm 16y ago
I keep thinking "thanks for pissing them off so they will be angry by the time they get to me, who do not have the option of not answering their questions. Incidentally, is it really a crime for non-US citizens to lie or whatever to a US federal agent when you are not on bona fide US soil? It would seem that I am not in a US jurisdiction since they haven't yet allowed me to enter the country...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Tichy 16y ago
I think in Germany, if the cops don't like you they can decide to search your body for drugs. Including some unpleasant possible hiding places on a naked body.
kschua 16y ago
I seriously wondered if he would have saved the half hour by answering the first question with "I have the right not to answer that question as I am a citizen re-entering my own country" instead of "None of your business" The former would still be asserting his right, but in a more polite way
bcaulf 16y ago
An ex-cop, Bradley Jardis, has contributed this account of his refusing to answer any questions whatsoever put to him by a cop during a traffic stop. It went quite well. http://freekeene.com/2010/06/08/a-thank-you-to-the-nashua-police/#more-6333 http://freekeene.com/2010/06/08/a-thank-you-to-the-nashua-po...

463 points by abraham 16y ago

If nothing else, it shows that the system works. A right that is not able to be exercised in a pragmatic manner is almost as bad as not having the right at all.

mjgoins 16y ago

The rights the author describes his exercise of can be swept away with the stroke of a pen, and once that happens, they won't be coming back.

mrtron 16y ago
I think we should applaud someone for having the courage to stand up for their basic rights. I don't think you should always take the path of least resistance.
thaumaturgy 16y ago
All the more reason to exercise them as fervently as possible.
CGamesPlay 16y ago
"The stroke of a pen" in the United States' case involves a majority vote in the Senate and agreement by the President (or else a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate). This is of course significantly more difficult to attain than many other pen strokes. (I suspect I agree with your sentiment, but your post is vague on your actual opinion of the matter.)
- _delirium 16y ago
  It's not clear what you'd do with the people if you did remove an unconditional right to reentry, either. If someone has only one nationality, and that country won't allow them in, then they become effectively stateless, which is a mess, since international law generally assumes that people have nationalities. Then someone like the UN has to try to figure out where they can be sent.
  - CGamesPlay 16y ago
    I actually assumed the right we were talking about was the right to remain silent, which would require a constitutional amendment to repeal. I am not so sure about the right to reenter one's own country.
- adammichaelc 16y ago
  This isn't quite true anymore. Over the last 2 centuries the President has little-by-little become more like a King. What I mean by that is that he has gained more powers that an absolute authority, like a King, would have. For example, the President has the power to write executive orders, which have the effect of law. While true that these orders can be challenged by congress, they normally aren't likely due to human nature (it's easier to say no to an idea than to stop somebody who has momentum). The end result of this is that the President now has the power to basically write laws. If he is not happy with Congress's opinion, he can take matters into his own hands. On most issues he gives deference to the law-making body's authority, but the power is always in his hands to act; in other words politically and practically he is held in check on most issues by Congress and is obviously not a King (ie he can't act unilaterally), but as time passes he gets more of the power that a King would have. Edited for clarity
tomjen3 16y ago
No they won't, but if you actually use them, they are not going to disappear.

acabal 16y ago

On one hand I agree that it's important to stand up for your rights, even it might seem like a trivial thing to argue at the time. Especially with how the TSA/Border control is evolving into less of a means of security than into an interrogation theater, it's important for us to know just how far an officer can legally question/search us and not to let them overstep those bounds. Once those bounds are crossed, it's hard (impossible?) to go back. On the other hand, the guy kind of acted like a jerk. He could have done the same thing without seeming so short and unfriendly. Even the most power-mad officers are still people with a basic job to do. Edit: having read his follow-up post, he makes some good points on the politeness issue. I guess I'm just happy there are people like him to have to the balls (and time to spare) to remind enforcers that they too must follow the law, even if it means a huge inconvenience for him.

mjgoins 16y ago
He addresses the politeness issue in the follow up by saying, quite rightly: To the authoritarian mind, there are only two responses to a demand: submission or defiance, and anything less than total submission is defiance.
- bonaldi 16y ago
  Nonetheless, to the human mind, there are plenty of shades of grey. If you're trying to convince (both them and the blog-reading public), you'd do well not to act as if everything's black and white. see also: Stallman.
  - thaumaturgy 16y ago
    One of my favorite quotes: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw) Stallman's complete and total unwillingness to bend at all occasionally grates on my nerves. I am also grateful for it.
- acabal 16y ago

noonespecial 16y ago

I simply provide a non-answer. I used to say "business" but lately they've been asking 5 minutes worth of follow-up questions about what type of business I'm in and where in the visited country I conducted this business and with whom. Now I say "to visit friends and family". This answer ends the questions instantly. I haven't gotten a follow-up yet. They seem to have a checkbox for this answer and that's that. I'm glad that there are guys out there doing this sort of thing. Its important. But for me, who just wants to get through as quickly as possible, I try to remember that even though its interface is human beings, its really just a poorly constructed machine. Give it the right tokens and the turnstile spins.

mrtron 16y ago
I think lying about your activities can get you into some actual trouble - so this could be risky advice if they follow up on who you were visting.
- mattmanser 16y ago
  In fact he specifically mentions that in the follow up point. What is extremely worrying is the comment that 'they have a checkbox for that'. What the hell are they doing recording the reasons for movement of law abiding citizens?
  - mrtron 16y ago
    He mentions anecdotal evidence that they haven't followed up with him on that issue. Doesn't mean lying to them isn't problematic.
  - cperciva 16y ago
    What the hell are they doing recording the reasons for movement of law abiding citizens? They don't know that you're law-abiding, for one thing. Law enforcement agencies routinely record information which is volunteered to them.
    - 16y ago

lionhearted 16y ago

Contrarian viewpoint - you're dealing with humans with emotions, and they deserve some respect on that human level. If you want to take a moral stand against encroachment of civil liberties, I respect that. But why not be polite? "I apologize, sir, but I'm morally opposed to answering questions beyond what I have to. I'll comply with the legal requirements to enter the country, but I don't answer questions I'm not legally required to on principal - I think it's no good." You're much less likely to have trouble that way, and it explains why you're doing what you're doing, which makes it more likely to have a positive impact and get the officers to re-think why they're doing their job and what it means. Stonewalling them is your legal right, fine, but it seems to be a sub-optimal choice on a principals/ethics level and on a practical level. Now before anyone replies, "You shouldn't have to bow and scrape to get into your own country" - yes I agree with you, but being rude doesn't accomplish anything additional than stating your principals politely.

SoftwareMaven 16y ago
This video is germain to this conversation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc It is unfortunate that the power-balance has become so one-sided that we actively worry about speaking to the police in case they decide to make your life difficult.
- edanm 16y ago
  I was about to post this myself. Here's my problem: theoretically, the video makes sense. I shouldn't every speak to the police. Practically, if I'm pulled over for a speeding ticket, saying "I refuse to speak" is going to get me in a lot more trouble than just playing along.
  - ugh 16y ago
    Be pragmatic and polite and don’t answer questions. If they ask you whether you know why they stopped you simply say “No, why?” (For the love of goodness, don’t admit that you were doing something wrong or even worse say you didn’t do anything wrong when you did.) If they ask you for ID provide them with one. It doesn’t seem that they would ask you any more questions, they can just hand you over the ticket. If they really do continue asking questions you can just politely say that you would rather not answer any more questions. That’s behavior very much consistent with the video.

nader 16y ago

I thought I had problems when travelling to San Francisco's Web 2.0 Expo this year but I never thought customs officers would make you as US Citizen problems. Crazy!

randallsquared 16y ago
US citizens may have more to worry about, actually, since the most they're likely to do to a non-citizen is refuse entry, but a citizen could easily wind up in jail for years for, in the recollection of the officer, lying to a federal officer. That was all Martha Stewart was convicted of, after all.

abraham 16y ago

I wonder how "personal reasons" would have gone over. Nondescript and a lot of people will assume sensitive personal reasons and not ask questions.

ghshephard 16y ago
I tried that once when returning to Canada. Resulted in a full (and _very, very detailed) search of my luggage. Would recommend not doing so unless you have an extra 30-45 minutes.
- arethuza 16y ago
  I had never realized that US nationals and Canadians got that grief when they got home - I thought it was reserved for foreigners trying to gain entry. I don't think I've ever been asked anything by anyone when returning to the UK - you just hand across your passport they have a quick look (possibly a scan) and they hand it back.
  - ghshephard 16y ago
    To be clear - as a Canadian, I only get hassled when returning to Canada. When entering the United States on my TN (which I do 6-10 times a year), I normally get waived on through, while about 10% of the time I get asked "Where are you working."
  - JshWright 16y ago
    I've travelled internationally maybe a dozen times in my life. I've never once had an issue on re-entering the country. In fact, I've had a grand total of two "incidents" while traveling: 1) A security agent in Amsterdam gave me some (understandable) stern looks because my passport had gone through the wash, and was very much worse for the wear. 2) In Warsaw, I misunderstood a security agent and ended up getting a large man with a gun mildly excited (which in turn got me a little excited...). Tip: If a security screener says something in a language you don't understand and waves towards your bag on the conveyor, don't just assume it means "Take your bag and and go," it might mean "Step away from the bag"

viraptor 16y ago

I really cannot figure out why he did that... Yes - freedom is cool in lots of situations. It's nice not to be detained without a reason, hit without a reason, denied entrance somewhere without a reason. This does not mean you should be a jerk to any staff member. They're asking questions - everyone knows they will. "I don't want to answer that" is way better than "None of your business" - it actually is their business. That's why they're there. Disagreeing with them is one thing, being rude to staff just because you have the right to is another. This makes me sad. There are so many ways and reasons to fight for freedom, but being rude to people following their standard job very near the useless end of that list... Nothing accomplished, some staff members annoyed, other passengers delayed. Rather childish. Also, he showed exactly how security works. They identified an angry / aggressive person, separated him from the crowd / put under observation, checked his bags for dangerous items. Maybe there's a reason to ask after all?

ghshephard 16y ago
His entire position is that, as an American Citizen, it really is none of their business what he was doing. Now that I think of it, shouldn't the job of Customs and Immigration be the following for returning American Citizens: A) Confirm that you are an American Citizen. B) Confirm that you are importing goods properly.
- viraptor 16y ago
  I don't disagree that he does not have to answer questions. That does not mean security staff cannot ask questions. Do you think it really matters what you answer? Would anyone say "I was organising an attack on X.", "I was meeting with Russian mafia.", etc.? Most of the people will say "business", "family visit" or something similar anyways. The person who doesn't - whatever the reason - is the one to look at. Still - I see the reason why the questions are being asked. Even if you don't have to answer. I'd really like to see if you'd get the same treatment if you simply said "I do not want to answer this question, because I'm not required to." with a smile instead of being passive-agressive.
  - 16y ago

poutine 16y ago

I'm horrified at the amount of people calling him a douche and asshole in his blog comments for asserting his rights. I didn't think such submission to authority had become such an American trait.

mattmaroon 16y ago
Funny, I feel the exact opposite. I'm horrified that people would consider this asserting his rights rather than being a douche. Asserting your rights is not moving to the back of the bus because your skin is the wrong color. Not just telling some customs guy who gets paid $12 an hour to answer questions mandated by Congress the answer to some insignificant questions is just being a douche.
- wrs 16y ago
  What is the "douche faction's" obsession with the pay of CBP officers? Is that somehow relevant to the discussion? He only dealt with the front-line officer for about two minutes anyway--in the back room he asked for a more-highly-paid superior and got one. So I'm assuming that makes you happier? BTW, do you have a citation for "mandated by Congress," or are you relying on the statement of the $12/hour officer for that?
  - mattmaroon 16y ago
    The point of the pay is to illustrate how far removed the person the author is being a douche to is from the people who make the policies. People in low level jobs like that are generally just trying to get through the day. Asserting that "The CBP goons want U.S. citizens to answer their questions as a ritualistic bow to their power" is douchebaggery in it's highest form, and it illustrates his mindset as that of man vs government. That statement alone, referring to decent people just trying to do their job as goons, qualifies the author as a douchebag. Also, how much power does a guy on a low-level government wage really feel they have? I'd bet anything they're told in their training that what they do is extremely important, that they are on the front lines in the war on terror. And they're also told that when someone refuses to cooperate (which, by the way, no terrorist would do) there's pretty much nothing they can do about it. They have what they feel is responsibility without power, which is a terrible situation for them to be in. I certainly don't know or care if those questions are mandated by Congress. (I don't find it hard to believe that they were though, or at least mandated by a group set up by Congress for that purpose.) It doesn't really matter. What I'm sure of is that they weren't mandated by the any of the people who questioned our author, especially if there are check boxes for them in some software. They probably weren't mandated by anyone who had ever met any of the author's victims, or even heard of them. And the people who mandated them will most likely never even hear of this guy or the handful of nutjobs like him.

itistoday 16y ago

This guy gets it, kudos to him! People like him are what keep authoritarian governments at bay, and inform the ignorant masses of their folly, who are all too eager to give up their rights. Well, CBP has no power over me. I am a law-abiding citizen, and, as such, I am the master, and the federal cops are my servants. They would do well to remember that. And: When it comes to rights, you don’t know in advance what battle will be important. But you do know, based on history and human nature, that a right undefended will shrivel and die. If you don’t fight for the small right, you won’t be in a position to assert the large right. Beautiful.

tptacek 16y ago
Federal cops are not his servants; they're our servants. There is a world of difference between those statements.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  'He' is part of 'us,' so why wouldn't that follow?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Because "we" have interests as a society that do not necessarily intersect "his" interests.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      Fair enough.

ben1040 16y ago

The mention about the records they keep (agents discussing the author's history of not answering questions) got me wondering what CBP has in their files about me and my movements across the border. At one point I read people on Flyertalk discussing how they sent FOIA requests for the pertinent records, but what they got back had all the juicy stuff (officers notes, etc) redacted.

tptacek 16y ago

The inalienable right to re-entry as a citizen is an interesting point that I hadn't thought of before. I'm glad he went through all this drama so we could think about that. I worry about his notion of having an inalienable right not to answer questions, though. The limits to your rights at the nation's borders can be surprising. Can border police deny you entry into the country? It seems, on reflection, that they cannot. Can border police arrest you, detain you for long periods of time, and book you for crimes that you may in fact be convicted of? I worry that the answers to this question aren't as crisply aligned with this guy's libertarianism as he hopes.

jodrellblank 16y ago
his notion of having an inalienable right not to answer questions, though /His/ notion? Can border police arrest you, detain you for long periods of time, and book you for crimes that you may in fact be convicted of? I worry that the answers to this question aren't as crisply aligned with this guy's libertarianism as he hopes. He seems more the kind of person to make the answers align with his view, rather than hope they already do.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Throughout the United States, you have an almost unlimited right to be free from searches by law enforcement absent probable cause that can be demonstrated in court. Except: * This doesn't apply at the border. * Regardless of whether the police have a right to search you, anything you do to obstruct a police search can be used as the basis of an orthogonal criminal charge. Similarly, throughout the United States, you have an almost unrestricted right not to answer questions from law enforcement. I ask: * Accepting that the outcome of not cooperating cannot be denial of reentry, to what extent does this principle apply at the border? The right to be free of unreasonable search is at the core of the bill of rights, and the word "reasonable" seems to mean "all bets are off at the border". * Regardless of whether police have a right to question you, things you do to obstruct them may be the basis of orthogonal criminal charges. For instance, Terry stops, Hiibel, &c. Generally, as an avid civil liberties enthusiast with zero legal qualifications, my perception is that your rights are at their practical zenith in a courtroom, and at their nadir in a confrontation with on-duty law enforcement.

jhghjnmmn 16y ago

When I briefly worked for a "Three Letter Agency" we were told that the only answer we were allowed to give to any question like this to any of our own or foreign officials was "work of a confidential nature in the national interest" It works well if you can do it with a straight face!

asmithmd1 16y ago
That is great! I bet it works like a free pass if you match their notion of a NSA, CIA, NRO employee.
- gjm11 16y ago
  I bet it works like a jail sentence[1] if they have some way of checking whether you actually are an employee of a three-letter agency and you aren't one. [1] Or a hefty fine, or some other variety of considerable nuisance.
  - asmithmd1 16y ago
    Why? What law do you think you are breaking by saying that? Adding jobs is in the national interest, right? You could be doing that by traveling.
  - lzw 16y ago
    You're not saying to whom the matter is confidential. My client work abroad is certainly confidential, though the US government may not care, the client does.
- philwelch 16y ago
  I guess "unshaven hippie with long hair" isn't the best look to pull this off, huh? If I faked a military bearing would they assume I was one of those military intelligence types that doesn't shave and has long hair just to throw people off from thinking he's a military intelligence type?

mhd 16y ago

Quick question from a foreigner: Did they ask him that because he went to China, or does this happen for other "less suspicious" nations (France, UK etc.), too?

qwzybug 16y ago
US CBP is always a pain in the ass. I never have as much trouble entering any foreign country as I do reentering my own. Ludicrous, really.
steveklabnik 16y ago
I just recently came back from Japan. It was my first time leaving the country. Going into Japan was great, very straightforward, polite, and fast. I actually had a question; they ask "Where are you staying?" on the form, but I didn't know. I was meeting my girlfriend in-country, and she had made all of our reservations, and I forgot to ask her for a copy. The woman smiled and said "No problem, just write Tokyo" and that was it. Coming back into America was terrible. I did answer these questions, and the officer tried to imply that I had tripped up, and was getting in trouble. (I live in PA, but my ticket was back to LAX only.) Then, while walking through to the 'collect your baggage' part, another officer stopped me, told me to get in a different line, since I'd collected no checked baggage. I told him I didn't have any, his eyes narrowed, and he started asking me more questions. I was like "Dude, I'm a guy. I have this huge backpack. I was only gone a week. Why would I need a suitcase?" and after a few more questions finally let me go. I don't fly unless I absolutely have to. It's just not worth the hassle.
- haberman 16y ago
  Counter-experience: I walked through customs with just a backpack after being in Europe for 2.5 weeks. Guy looks at me and says "you didn't check any bags?" and I responded "I travel light," with a bit of a grin on my face. He says "welcome home." It was a touching moment.
- kareemm 16y ago
  I've heard US customs described as an additional penalty on Americans who travel abroad.

sudonim 16y ago

So, if I am to try this when I return from india (going for my friend's wedding and vacation), what would be the best response, word for word to refuse to answer questions? It seems people think his approach is rude.

thaumaturgy 16y ago
Based on much of the discussion here, I'd definitely say that the only person that can give you the correct answer is an attorney that you trust. If you can't find such a person, then the next best answer would be to respond exactly as Paul Lukacs did, since he's a Los Angeles attorney (and author of a couple of articles in reason.com). Following any layman's advice is probably a good way to get yourself in trouble.

roboneal 16y ago

There is a difference between being a Citizen and a subject. You are not obligated to sit meekly while your rights are being nibbled at or outright violated by "people just doing their jobs".

Mz 16y ago

His position that "politeness would make no difference", combined with other remarks he has made, suggests to me he simply doesn't know how to be genuinely polite and respectful of others. He reminds me of a woman I am passingly acquainted with who insisted that when things began to go south in business negotiations and other social settings, there was nothing you could do to stop it. Well, maybe there was nothing she could do. That doesn't mean it can't be done. (From observation of her, her attitude seemed to bring a lot of her troubles to her. She was quite combative, high-handed and so on.) I'm all for not setting foot on the slippery slope. I am a firm believer that acting to protect your rights before there is a problem is the best policy. But assuming an adversarial relationship does not mean one needs to go out of their way to ensure that the relationship is as adversarial as possible.

wccrawford 16y ago

They didn't hold him for refusing to answer. They held him because he was suspicious. That's their job. When everything checked out and they couldn't find anything wrong, they had to let him go. He was only there for half an hour. 30 minutes. That's not an unreasonable time at all when you've done something suspicious like answer routine questions rudely. Don't get me wrong. I think our airport security is absolutely useless at this point. I haven't flown on a plane for a decade because I won't submit to that useless idiocy. (I might do so if it weren't useless, despite the 'freedoms' lost.)

Hixie 16y ago
30 minutes is less time than I've spent actually entering the country through that same airport.

mmaunder 16y ago

Way to go. The only way to be sure that we have certain rights is to exercise them. Thanks for inconveniencing yourself on our behalf. I'm inspired to do the same.

Emore 16y ago

Do you have any rights whatsoever, if you're a foreigner entering America?

edanm 16y ago
You obviously have some human rights. They can't (legally) harm you physically without any reason, afaik.
- hugh3 16y ago
  You have all sorts of rights. The main one you don't have is the right to get into the country, and that's the only one which really matters. So definitely do not try this trick if you're a foreigner attempting to enter the US.

aneth 16y ago

I'm glad that some people assert rights that are a pain to assert most of the time, because it reminds everyone that they exist. However, this guy seem like kind of a jerk as well. It sounds like they largely treated him respectfully, and calling them "thugs" makes him sound like a misguided hippy.

rfrey 16y ago

I'm astonished at the number of folks who are sincere in their belief that politeness and respect make one immune from abuse at the border. The belief seems to be based on their own politeness and lack of hassles thus far. I crossed the border more than a hundred times over ten years with no difficulties whatsoever. I grew up in a police family and am unswervingly polite and respectful. That did not protect me from 12 hours of interrogation in a white room and a deportment (reason still undetermined and undisclosed: a Freedom of Information Act request brought a document 75% redacted) when I happened upon the wrong, bored CBP official. Just because you've affirmed the consequent a few dozen times doesn't mean politeness will help you.

flatline 16y ago
Politeness works fine with many people in many circustances, and it has bought me out of a few pinches. I've seen a cop's face go from suspicious anger to placidity from a smooth handling of their concerns. I'd wager that most of the time, politeness won't hurt and sometimes it will help. Sometimes though you're right, particularly with law enforcement, if someone is in a bad mood and on a power trip it will not make one iota of difference. What I took from this is to pay attention, there's no need to consistently clam up like this guy does, but remember it's an option because sometimes it may be necessary.
- lzw 16y ago
  You're still chasing a red herring: By all accounts this guy was polite. You're using the word "politeness" to mean "absolutely subservient to the whims of authority". He WAS polite, but stood on his rights. Including the absolute right to silence, which he politely explained.
  - flatline 16y ago
    "absolutely subservient to the whims of authority" That's reading an awful lot into what I wrote. By the author's own language he appears to bear a grudge against the CBP, so while he sounds polite by his own account he clearly goes out of his way to prove a (valid) point. I don't really see a problem with, most of the time, answering that I was on a business trip and packed my own bags, nor should most people in a "polite society". I don't see how this is being subservient to anyone. Wouldn't a better policy be to assume no problem and only raise the issue if they raise it first? It's healthy for society to have people push back against the system but it's also in our best interest, overall, to have security and part of that security is making judgments based on how someone responds to simple questions.

gokhan 16y ago

The problem is, if lots of US citizens behave like him, we people from other nations will have a hard time (as if it's not already an unpleasant experience) entering US because officers will be pissed off and someone will pay for it.

jleyank 16y ago

While it might be strictly true that a US-ian can't be denied entry to the US, recall that there is no constitutional right to any particular mode of travel... One can "enter" the US in various foreign airports (Shannon, several in Canada) and doing a "nope, I'm not talkin'" gig will probably result in a "well, you ain't flyin' either". I also worry that being too hostile with one's baggage might get it blown up. Certainly get it inspected closely. Might not be too good for cameras, laptops and other storage media.

jrockway 16y ago
You watch too much TV.

randallsquared 16y ago

Ultimately, the cops let me go, because there was nothing they could do. In this particular instance it may have seemed this way, but if you continue, you will likely find out it's not really true. They'd just rather not go to the effort of doing what they can do. Enforcement is selective, so unless you think you can get a lot of attention in time to do you some good, it's best to pick your battles wisely.

jseliger 16y ago
"They'd just rather not go to the effort of doing what they can do." What do you think police can do? He cites case law that indicates police can't prevent you from re-entering the country.
- randallsquared 16y ago
  If they're annoyed enough, they can find something you did do, and charge you for it. Depending on how visibly you live your life, this might be easy or difficult, but ultimately they can just "remember" something you said that you didn't say, and then you could go to jail. All this is chancy, since the jury, should it come to that, may be sympathetic to you, but if you're habitually confrontational, that might be less likely. Basically, the Martha Stewart conviction destroyed what remained of my faith in the "justice" system. Here was a woman who, in theory, had the deck stacked her way... money, fame, etc. What was she convicted of? Lying to a federal officer, not under oath, about not committing a crime that they couldn't convict her of in the first place. The conclusive evidence basically boiled down to one or more officers' word that she denied wrongdoing. Let me recap: if some police are determined to put you in jail, you can go to jail for lying to an officer, when you assert that you didn't commit a crime. They do not have to prove that you did commit the crime. Just saying you didn't do it is presumptively a lie, and a federal crime. If you give them reason to be mad at you, you're gambling with your freedom, no matter what you have or haven't done. Note that not talking to the police is not sufficient to save you from prosecution, since the vast majority could be considered guilty of misprision of felony -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000004----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000004----... -- which is itself a federal felony, so if someone tells you they saw a felony committed (possession, say) and you know they didn't report it, now you're committing a felony unless you report them.

cinimod 16y ago

And then we're wondering why it takes 2 hours to wait in the airport.

RuadhanMc 16y ago

I think it is a good thing that he refused to answer the questions -- I respect that. But I find his aggressive attitude ("But that’s a small price to pay to remind these thugs that their powers are limited and restricted.") and obsession with the master/slave relationship ("I am the master, and the federal cops are my servants") to be fairly off putting. It is not that he does not want master/slave relationships to exist, it is that he wants (nay, needs) always to be the master. He strikes me as the sort of person who would say something offensive just so that he could make a point about freedom of speech. The world I see is not viewed through the same prism of master/slave relationships. In my world I am the master of myself. I am no ones slave and no one is my slave. It is a happy place to be.

dawie 16y ago

I always answer their questions with silly vague answers. For example: Q: Why are you going to do in city X? A: Party Q: Party? A: and see some sites. Vague questions get vague answers.

dot-sean 16y ago

This is a hillarious post. An officer's job is more than push people around and show their powers over the rest of us. Imagine for a second that you are the officer instead. Your job may be to get certain information and determine if person may be hiding something. She asked you a question, not because she'll forward the details of your business trip to your competitor. Of course you could lie to her and she won't know or care any different. Her job is to guage whether you seem nervous, or deceptive. That's one way for them to figure out a. if you might be dangerous, or hiding something in your luggage like Drugs, weapons, bombs, rare endangered,illegal animals etc. We blamed a lot of these people for letting 9/11 hijackers in the US and on the planes on 9/11/2001, but idiots like yourself are making their jobs are lot harder. Believe it or not, no one can make a machine that can detect a terrorist or someone that is up to no good 100% of the time. Its human interaction that prevents such events, and only that. If every moron like yourself gives these officers a hard time, and they have to check EVERY bag, it would be impossible to do so. Chances are someone that deserves more attention, oh I don't know someone like a fucking terrorist, will slip by. You and most idiots that are giving you kudos in the comments are making things a lot worse. Just because you can be a dick, doesn't mean you should. There are a lot of things you can do legally to your wife and loved ones...but I bet you don't. Maybe treating police officers and customs officers and airport personnel with some respect, understanding why they might do things a certain way, would help us all. I hope EVERYBODY treats you like shit, legally, and because they CAN, and let's see you complain about how tough your fucking job is, numbnuts!

rakkhi 16y ago

Just awesome, hope your travel in future is without incident. I thought it was ridiculous that even in transit where you are actually not entering the US customs fingerprint all your fingers. I was very very tempted to refuse but in the end I was too scared that I would just miss my trip

mkramlich 16y ago

I'd file this under things which are unwise to do because they create more trouble for yourself than otherwise, with no real upside, only downside.

alex_h 16y ago

In the EU, airport authorities will refuse to stamp your EU passport, even if you ask them to (travel geek, I wanted the stamp). As an EU citizen you may not be denied entry to any EU country and stamping your passport would imply that they had the right to either allow or deny entry.

dotBen 16y ago

Regardless of whether its the CBP officer in the airport or a police officer on the street, the key friction point is that if everyone demands full exercise of their rights (ultimately, not to talk or interact with the officer, other than prove identity) it would be near-impossible for them to perform their function of catching criminals, terrorists, etc. Or, to put it another way, we EXPECT that people won't exercise their full rights as part of our expectation that the police and CPB officials are able to to carry out their job. Regardless of how you stand on the original issue of the OP, it's worth considering for a moment that our policing system relies, in the main, on people not up-holding their rights in order to succeed.

dotBen 16y ago

The wider issue here that I don't see anyone really addressing is why are US Citizens interviewed/interrogated (even casually, at the CBP desk) about their activities. I'm a British Citizen living in the US (so I'm mandated to fully answer all questions because I have no pre-governed right to entry into the US) but when I return home to UK they scan my passport and wave on me - no questions at all. Regardless of this individual case, as a wider issue I don't understand why people (US Citizens) accept as policy and expected MO that CPB routinely asks the level of questioning that they do to citizens.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

lutorm 16y ago

I keep thinking "thanks for pissing them off so they will be angry by the time they get to me, who do not have the option of not answering their questions. Incidentally, is it really a crime for non-US citizens to lie or whatever to a US federal agent when you are not on bona fide US soil? It would seem that I am not in a US jurisdiction since they haven't yet allowed me to enter the country...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Tichy 16y ago

I think in Germany, if the cops don't like you they can decide to search your body for drugs. Including some unpleasant possible hiding places on a naked body.

kschua 16y ago

I seriously wondered if he would have saved the half hour by answering the first question with "I have the right not to answer that question as I am a citizen re-entering my own country" instead of "None of your business" The former would still be asserting his right, but in a more polite way

bcaulf 16y ago

An ex-cop, Bradley Jardis, has contributed this account of his refusing to answer any questions whatsoever put to him by a cop during a traffic stop. It went quite well. http://freekeene.com/2010/06/08/a-thank-you-to-the-nashua-police/#more-6333 http://freekeene.com/2010/06/08/a-thank-you-to-the-nashua-po...