4 ms·

So how exactly is this news? You go to a border crossing without ID, you're going to get detained until they figure out who you are. They're not just going to t

So how exactly is this news? You go to a border crossing without ID, you're going to get detained until they figure out who you are. They're not just going to take your work for it that you 'left your id at home'. It also sounds like he ended up talking to the same people that process people actually crossing which makes this even more tricky. How is that person supposed to know the guy didn't get off a bus (which stop there and people go inside the building) and is just saying something to get past them?

EliRivers 7y ago
So how exactly is this news? You go to a border crossing without ID, you're going to get detained until they figure out who you are. I disagree. I go to the airport (a border crossing) regularly to pick people up or drop people off and I definitely do not expect to be detained while they figure out who I am. It also sounds like he ended up talking to the same people that process people actually crossing which makes this even more tricky. I disagree. It's pretty clear that if you're outside the secure area through which those who arrive from the other country are herded, it's not at all tricky. The fact that the person he was talking to sometimes does the passport checking seems irrelevant.
- merlincorey 7y ago
  > I disagree. It's pretty clear that if you're outside the secure area through which those who arrive by aircraft are herded, it's not at all tricky. This did not take place at an Airport, but rather, a Canadian/US border patrol station where according to someone else in this thread, a bus stop for border crossing exists. It seems entirely reasonable to me that those agents are more vigilant against "I totally forgot my ID at home".
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    So it did. I maintain that simply being at a border crossing should not be grounds for detaining, but I do recognise that while a competent border crossing would make it impossible for someone to simply walk into the sterile "crossing zone" (and in airports such zones are usually pretty solid), this is not exactly a department known for competency. Edit: Now that I consider it, it would seem really incompetent to just not notice which direction someone came from. This would allow people to cross the border all day with impunity. Pure speculation, but I bet they knew exactly which way he came from; they just felt like hassling some muslim looking guy without ID because they could (although I recognise that in the US, carrying a driving license everywhere seems to be a weird cultural phenomenon).
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Peace Bridge gets millions of crossing per year, tens of thousands per day. Your speculation that they kept track of what direction someone was coming from, and just did this to hassle a “Muslim looking guy” (what does that even mean?) is totally ridiculous.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - EliRivers 7y ago
        If they don't keep track of which direction people come from, and that person doesn't have any paperwork, how do they know which side to tell them to go back to? What's stopping someone crossing from Canada saying "Oh, sorry, left my ID at home, I'll go back and get it, from my home, in the US, where I just came from" and then just continue into the US? “Muslim looking guy” (what does that even mean?) You don't have to agree with it to know what a "muslim looking guy" means. It means "someone whose looks Arabic or Persian, possibly with a beard". That's what it means. It's wrong, and it's prejudical, and in a strictly literal sense the words are inherently nonsensical, but that's what it means. I think you knew that already and for some passive-aggressive reason you're pretending you didn't.
    - Qwertystop 7y ago
      > (although I recognise that in the US, carrying a driving license everywhere seems to be a weird cultural phenomenon). Perhaps less "weird cultural phenomenon" and more "it's about the same size as a credit card", plus "it's probably the only broadly accepted government-issued ID you've got, so there's a variety of things things you might need it for, some of which you might not expect when you leave the house", resulting in "just leave it in your wallet or your handbag or wherever you carry such things". If you're already generally leaving it with all the other miscellany you carry by default, it'd be more effort and more risk to take it out whenever you don't think you'd need it than to just leave it in your wallet/bag. If you're going to buy something, generally you'd have your wallet. How do you handle such things, then? Honestly curious.
phonon 7y ago
Don't they have cameras? Can't the see he was coming from the US side?
- campfireveteran 7y ago
  You're not thinking of the CBP's job and the effort delta of a traveler with ID and one WITHOUT. The latter probably triggers all sorts of additional checks, paperwork, and hassles for everyone involved.
- dawnerd 7y ago
  Yes, but they're still going to detain you first.
chmod775 7y ago
> How is that person supposed to know the guy didn't get off a bus (which stop there and people go inside the building) and is just saying something to get past them? Yeah no. That's not how border crossings work at all. It would be pretty embarrassing if people going in, going out, and those who are there to visit the customs office weren't kept separate. But then I'm only assuming that border crossings in the US work the same way as border crossings elsewhere. Maybe they're a clown fiesta instead. Who knows.
- iamthirsty 7y ago
  > It also sounds like he ended up talking to the same people that process people actually crossing which makes this even more tricky. Kinda looks like you ignored the preceding sentence to look snarky.
  - djsumdog 7y ago
    No this is reasonable. There is no reason he would be talking to the same people. Sure the same border agent can work incoming/outgoing, but not at the same time (not at any airport or road crossing I've ever been through). Border agents should know which side they're facing and which direction those people are traveling in. If they're not, they're incompetent.
- dawnerd 7y ago
  It was at the peace bridge which is a little weird, I've crossed there and had to go inside many many times. The building is quite small as well. If you look on the maps you can see it's not like there's a 'visitor' area, just an employee lot. There's also a u-turn to return to America without passing Canadian customs on the Canada side, but you're going to still have to explain to the Americans why you're crossing. My money is on this being how it happened. All of that aside, thinking about it more, it's kind of weird that they'd even ask him to go to the peace bridge to begin with instead of any other CBP point in the area
- kps 7y ago
  There are no ‘people going out’ there; the US does not have exit controls. This is an entry point, and getting there from the US side requires passing ‘TO CANADA’ signs and turning around before the Canadian entry point.
mindslight 7y ago
The burden of proof is on the government agents, not on the victim. Did they have any evidence that he crossed the border apart from their own accumulated occupational biases? If not, then they had no justification to do what they did.
- Bartweiss 7y ago
  Legally, this isn't necessarily the case. The border search exception says that proximity to a border is inherently justification to search people without a warrant or probable cause, so the position of the Supreme Court is that agents don't have the normal burden of evidence for such actions. US v. Martinez-Fuerte went further and held that drivers can be directed to secondary screening without even reasonable suspicion. The article is accurate but misleading when it discusses the conditions for these searches. (For instance, "calls into question whether the man, who is Muslim, was singled out because of his faith", "the border search exception is grounded in traversal of the border itself".) It's true that this raises questions about whether profiling was used, but the implicit "which is illegal" is false: the border search caselaw explicitly permits otherwise-illegal ethnic profiling. And "grounded in traversal" does not mean "pursuant to evidence of traversal": once again, Martinez suggests that searches to check whether someone has crossed are legal. Even "accumulated occupational biases" are a search rationale as 'training' and 'professional experience'. There are a number of reasons this search still appears illegal, and the counsels interviewed for the story are understandably dubious But the boundaries of what's legal here extend well past what I find horrifying: searching people at the border without proof, explicitly on the basis of institutional opinions and racial profiling, has been upheld as legal.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    CBP agents could not go to the bathroom without following a written procedure - the government's sine qua non is natural language code. As such, The Government writing a methodology for how The Government can perform a certain action is not convincing in and of itself. More concretely, this idea of a 100 mile "exception" is utter nonsense, especially with significant population living within that area. But the Supreme Court identified with the power-desire to carry out such searches, and so performed enough logical gymnastics to create a plausible justification. And while its dubious conclusions certainly affect the practical ability of its victims to obtain straightforward justice, We The People should certainly not buy into their claims as universal when weighing whether The Government has run aground of its charter.
alasdair_ 7y ago
>So how exactly is this news? You go to a border crossing without ID, you're going to get detained until they figure out who you are. There is a big difference between going to an airport and passing through a secure area at that airport. He didn't try to cross the border.

EliRivers 7y ago

So how exactly is this news? You go to a border crossing without ID, you're going to get detained until they figure out who you are. I disagree. I go to the airport (a border crossing) regularly to pick people up or drop people off and I definitely do not expect to be detained while they figure out who I am. It also sounds like he ended up talking to the same people that process people actually crossing which makes this even more tricky. I disagree. It's pretty clear that if you're outside the secure area through which those who arrive from the other country are herded, it's not at all tricky. The fact that the person he was talking to sometimes does the passport checking seems irrelevant.

merlincorey 7y ago
> I disagree. It's pretty clear that if you're outside the secure area through which those who arrive by aircraft are herded, it's not at all tricky. This did not take place at an Airport, but rather, a Canadian/US border patrol station where according to someone else in this thread, a bus stop for border crossing exists. It seems entirely reasonable to me that those agents are more vigilant against "I totally forgot my ID at home".
- EliRivers 7y ago
  So it did. I maintain that simply being at a border crossing should not be grounds for detaining, but I do recognise that while a competent border crossing would make it impossible for someone to simply walk into the sterile "crossing zone" (and in airports such zones are usually pretty solid), this is not exactly a department known for competency. Edit: Now that I consider it, it would seem really incompetent to just not notice which direction someone came from. This would allow people to cross the border all day with impunity. Pure speculation, but I bet they knew exactly which way he came from; they just felt like hassling some muslim looking guy without ID because they could (although I recognise that in the US, carrying a driving license everywhere seems to be a weird cultural phenomenon).
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Peace Bridge gets millions of crossing per year, tens of thousands per day. Your speculation that they kept track of what direction someone was coming from, and just did this to hassle a “Muslim looking guy” (what does that even mean?) is totally ridiculous.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - EliRivers 7y ago
      If they don't keep track of which direction people come from, and that person doesn't have any paperwork, how do they know which side to tell them to go back to? What's stopping someone crossing from Canada saying "Oh, sorry, left my ID at home, I'll go back and get it, from my home, in the US, where I just came from" and then just continue into the US? “Muslim looking guy” (what does that even mean?) You don't have to agree with it to know what a "muslim looking guy" means. It means "someone whose looks Arabic or Persian, possibly with a beard". That's what it means. It's wrong, and it's prejudical, and in a strictly literal sense the words are inherently nonsensical, but that's what it means. I think you knew that already and for some passive-aggressive reason you're pretending you didn't.
  - Qwertystop 7y ago
    > (although I recognise that in the US, carrying a driving license everywhere seems to be a weird cultural phenomenon). Perhaps less "weird cultural phenomenon" and more "it's about the same size as a credit card", plus "it's probably the only broadly accepted government-issued ID you've got, so there's a variety of things things you might need it for, some of which you might not expect when you leave the house", resulting in "just leave it in your wallet or your handbag or wherever you carry such things". If you're already generally leaving it with all the other miscellany you carry by default, it'd be more effort and more risk to take it out whenever you don't think you'd need it than to just leave it in your wallet/bag. If you're going to buy something, generally you'd have your wallet. How do you handle such things, then? Honestly curious.

phonon 7y ago

Don't they have cameras? Can't the see he was coming from the US side?

campfireveteran 7y ago
You're not thinking of the CBP's job and the effort delta of a traveler with ID and one WITHOUT. The latter probably triggers all sorts of additional checks, paperwork, and hassles for everyone involved.
dawnerd 7y ago
Yes, but they're still going to detain you first.

chmod775 7y ago

> How is that person supposed to know the guy didn't get off a bus (which stop there and people go inside the building) and is just saying something to get past them? Yeah no. That's not how border crossings work at all. It would be pretty embarrassing if people going in, going out, and those who are there to visit the customs office weren't kept separate. But then I'm only assuming that border crossings in the US work the same way as border crossings elsewhere. Maybe they're a clown fiesta instead. Who knows.

iamthirsty 7y ago
> It also sounds like he ended up talking to the same people that process people actually crossing which makes this even more tricky. Kinda looks like you ignored the preceding sentence to look snarky.
- djsumdog 7y ago
  No this is reasonable. There is no reason he would be talking to the same people. Sure the same border agent can work incoming/outgoing, but not at the same time (not at any airport or road crossing I've ever been through). Border agents should know which side they're facing and which direction those people are traveling in. If they're not, they're incompetent.
dawnerd 7y ago
It was at the peace bridge which is a little weird, I've crossed there and had to go inside many many times. The building is quite small as well. If you look on the maps you can see it's not like there's a 'visitor' area, just an employee lot. There's also a u-turn to return to America without passing Canadian customs on the Canada side, but you're going to still have to explain to the Americans why you're crossing. My money is on this being how it happened. All of that aside, thinking about it more, it's kind of weird that they'd even ask him to go to the peace bridge to begin with instead of any other CBP point in the area
kps 7y ago
There are no ‘people going out’ there; the US does not have exit controls. This is an entry point, and getting there from the US side requires passing ‘TO CANADA’ signs and turning around before the Canadian entry point.

mindslight 7y ago

The burden of proof is on the government agents, not on the victim. Did they have any evidence that he crossed the border apart from their own accumulated occupational biases? If not, then they had no justification to do what they did.

Bartweiss 7y ago
Legally, this isn't necessarily the case. The border search exception says that proximity to a border is inherently justification to search people without a warrant or probable cause, so the position of the Supreme Court is that agents don't have the normal burden of evidence for such actions. US v. Martinez-Fuerte went further and held that drivers can be directed to secondary screening without even reasonable suspicion. The article is accurate but misleading when it discusses the conditions for these searches. (For instance, "calls into question whether the man, who is Muslim, was singled out because of his faith", "the border search exception is grounded in traversal of the border itself".) It's true that this raises questions about whether profiling was used, but the implicit "which is illegal" is false: the border search caselaw explicitly permits otherwise-illegal ethnic profiling. And "grounded in traversal" does not mean "pursuant to evidence of traversal": once again, Martinez suggests that searches to check whether someone has crossed are legal. Even "accumulated occupational biases" are a search rationale as 'training' and 'professional experience'. There are a number of reasons this search still appears illegal, and the counsels interviewed for the story are understandably dubious But the boundaries of what's legal here extend well past what I find horrifying: searching people at the border without proof, explicitly on the basis of institutional opinions and racial profiling, has been upheld as legal.
- mindslight 7y ago
  CBP agents could not go to the bathroom without following a written procedure - the government's sine qua non is natural language code. As such, The Government writing a methodology for how The Government can perform a certain action is not convincing in and of itself. More concretely, this idea of a 100 mile "exception" is utter nonsense, especially with significant population living within that area. But the Supreme Court identified with the power-desire to carry out such searches, and so performed enough logical gymnastics to create a plausible justification. And while its dubious conclusions certainly affect the practical ability of its victims to obtain straightforward justice, We The People should certainly not buy into their claims as universal when weighing whether The Government has run aground of its charter.

alasdair_ 7y ago

>So how exactly is this news? You go to a border crossing without ID, you're going to get detained until they figure out who you are. There is a big difference between going to an airport and passing through a secure area at that airport. He didn't try to cross the border.