6 ms·

This is good, and I hope it stands. Once you demonstrate that you are in fact a citizen of the US, you cannot be denied entry, and IMO all the regular Constitu

This is good, and I hope it stands. Once you demonstrate that you are in fact a citizen of the US, you cannot be denied entry, and IMO all the regular Constitutional protections should immediately apply.

jamesdwilson 3y ago
serious q, i legit don't know about these things, what about that ambiguous gray area i see so-called freedom auditors use where they argue that the Agent has no reason to suspect they are not american, (and they repeat am i free to go/ am i being detained)
- Arrath 3y ago
  I can't honestly see how there is grey area, you're at a border checkpoint: show some form of identification either way? There is no requirement for an agent to assume your nationality and let you through, no? You still need to show your passport even when returning home. Of course, all this sovereign citizen nonsense ignores reality and tries to pursue (nonexistent) legal 'gotchas' like you're rules-lawyering your way into a 'rules as written' game breaking combo in Magic: The Gathering.
  - jamesdwilson 3y ago
    Well the evidence is there on youtube if you'd like, lots and lots of videos of border patrol letting people go who show no ID at all. Seems to support the auditor's POV. I have no dog in this fight, just an intellectual curiosity.
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      I don't really trust YT as a source for any kind of facts. CBP is pretty specific about documentation required to enter the country. If you're a citizen and you lack any documentation, you're going to be sitting around for hours while they determine (to their satisfaction) that you're who you claim to be. It would also only really apply at a land crossing, I imagine. You can't even get on a plane that's entering the US without showing your passport at the departure gate. At that point your only option if you really are without documentation is to find the nearest US consulate and get some travel papers.
      - FireBeyond 3y ago
        > CBP is pretty specific about documentation required to enter the country. My last flight to Seattle from Mexico a few weeks ago (also, note that I'm an LPR, and not a citizen) I walked up to the CBP immigration counter, looked at a webcam, the officer looked at his computer, said "[my name]?" "Yes." "You're good to go." I had, of course, my passport and green card on me, but they were held by my side the entire time. He didn't ask for them.
        woobar 3y ago
        They have linked your face to the photo in your passport/green card. By looking into the camera you agreed for them to perform the lookup of your ID. It is probably more secure than looking at a physical ID that could be fake.
        ricktdotorg 3y ago
        green card holder here, this exact thing happened to me last time i flew into US from EU. i even asked the CBP guy, "you don't need to see my passport or green card"? "nope" was the response as he waved me through.
      - kelnos 3y ago
        We're not talking about entering the country; we're talking about CBP's absurd "interior checkpoints". They'll set up roadblocks on a random highway well inside Texas or Arizona or whatever, and stop everyone driving by to ask them about their citizenship status. You don't really have to "trust YT" here; there are plenty of videos of the encounters themselves, where people stubbornly refuse to answer the CBP agent's questions until the agent gives up and waves them through. Sure, you can argue that they're staged or something, but the sheer number of them would at least put some doubt on that claim.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      Yes, that sounds like horrible advice. Trust your legal standing to some video you saw on YT (said no lawyer ever).
      - jamesdwilson 3y ago
        I never suggested to follow any advice from youtube and I don't think your take is charitable.
    - flerchin 3y ago
      This is at Border Patrol Interior checkpoints. At which you are not required to do anything except stop and ask them to let you leave.
      - chasd00 3y ago
        Can confirm. I’ve been through a number of those checkpoints in SW Texas. You stop they ask a question or two and then you’re waved through. I’ve never been asked to show ID. On one occasion they did have a dog walk around the car but I think that is done randomly. /before people ask: I’m white my wife is Mexican.
  - jamesdwilson 3y ago
    Also I never said anything about sovereign citizens. I think many of these people are constitutionalists and libertarians.
    - SllX 3y ago
      “Am I being detained?” is a bit of a meme/dog whistle associated with Sovereign Citizens so I was going to ask you about if “Freedom Auditors” is just another term for them up above until I saw this follow up comment; but Googling it just turned up First Amendment auditors which does not appear to be the same thing. Many of them are libertarians and think they’re Constitutionalists. Please clarify if I’ve got the wrong read on what you mean though.
      - woah 3y ago
        It’s also a very basic question to ask. Once you have been arrested, there is a procedure to be followed and you will probably choose to get a lawyer. At the same time, they can’t detain you for longer than is reasonable without officially arresting you. So some may try to exploit the ambiguity of a situation to make you think that you are not free to leave, but without explicitly detaining you. Asking this question forces them to start engaging in the proper procedure for detention or arrest, or admit that you are free to go.
        SllX 3y ago
        That is reasonable and solid life advice, but seeing it in a sentence with a phrase I don’t know like “freedom auditors” still leaves me confused as to the meaning of the latter, and that’s where my mind went first until I saw the parent’s follow up. Like I said, the best I’ve found is some information on a movement of “First Amendment auditors” but a literal reading of what they’re about has them testing First Amendment jurisprudence which isn’t exactly stress-testing your Fourth Amendment rights in an reentry line at the border, hence the request for clarification.
      - yardie 3y ago
        I'm neither a Sovereign Citizen or Constitutionalist. I've used the "Am I being detained?" question whenever the LEO starts to get too informal with me with leading questions.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    True as such, but remember that universal passports have been around for barely more than a century. In previous eras entry to a country was not considered important government business other than during wartime. That all changed in 1920. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/a-history-of-the-passport https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/a-history-...
    - jltsiren 3y ago
      There have always been border controls. Before precise land borders became a thing, the checkpoints were more likely to be at natural bottlenecks such as bridges, mountain passes, harbors, and city gates. Even in the period of supposedly free international travel before WW1, the US government barred a large number of people from entering the country.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I don't think the grandparent is talking about the requirement to present a passport at a port of entry (airport, border land crossing, etc.). They're talking about CBP checkpoints in the interior of the US -- like, on a random highway well inside Texas or Arizona -- where they stop everyone driving by and ask them if they are US citizens. There are plenty of videos on YouTube of people sitting in their cars and just repeating "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" over and over until the CBP officer gets tired of it and lets them go. As should be the case, IMO; the existence of these checkpoints is absurd.
- alex_lav 3y ago
  IANAL, but it seems to be pretty well documented and agreed upon internationally that one must produce documents to enter a country. To arrive at a border crossing or port of entry and assert the border agent does not have probable cause to ask for documents just doesn't really seem like a grey area at all. The "freedom auditors" are expressing their rights to doing things that are _defined as legal_ but regularly infringed upon (taking pictures of public property like police station lobbies, post offices and libraries). Refusing to show documents at a port of entry isn't ever defined as legal, AFAICT. Now, this federal ruling is kind of unrelated. It's not about asking for documentation, it's about the ability to search an arrested person's phone after they've been arrested.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  The ID requirement to gain entry is fairly specific. I can't imagine CBP just letting someone through without it. I understand some people do the 'am I free to go' bit with local police, but that's after you're inside the country. To be clear, I think it's 100% okay for the border patrol to require proof of citizenship at the border. I just think that the moment you prove it, the border patrol becomes just like any other federal police force, no extra powers just because they're at the border.
  - akomtu 3y ago
    > can't imagine CBP just letting someone through without it Depends on the border that you're trying to cross.
  - reaperman 3y ago
    Obviously you can come back into the country without a passport/ID, it’s just a hassle. It’s not like they send you back and now you have no citizenship. They have a process for this, it just takes a long time to manually confirm you are who you say you are.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    In actual practice though they don’t. If you walk across the bridge from Mexico after a night out 99 times out of 100 they’ll just ask your citizenship verbally and if you speak English without an accent they wave you on.
readthenotes1 3y ago
" Once you demonstrate that you are in fact a citizen of the US, you cannot be denied entry, and IMO all the regular Constitutional protections should immediately apply." I am not a constitutional scholar, but very few of the rights given to the government specify citenzry as important. Most of the rights specified as not granted refer to people or persons, not citizens. So your sentence should be "once you demonstrate that you are in fact a person in the United States..."
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  A non-citizen doesn't have any inherent right to enter the country at all. If they are allowed to, it's a privilege generously granted by the state—and as a privilege, it's entirely conditional and revocable. That being said, guests of the country must always be treated fairly and honestly, just as you would treat a guest in your home.
  - LastTrain 3y ago
    You are almost entirely wrong, of course. Visitors in the US do indeed have rights.
    - thrwawy74 3y ago
      For comradery, I'm loving where this is going. I do wish we more consciously accepted that all persons have inherent rights. Looking forward to a world gov that tries to do good things someday... a la Bicentennial Man.
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      Sure they do, just not the right to enter the United States.
    - lazyasciiart 3y ago
      No, they are 100% correct. People who want to enter the country are not visitors in the US, by definition. And the comment didn’t say that even aspiring visitors to the US have no rights - it said they have no right to enter the country.
tptacek 3y ago
The border search privilege applied at the time of the founders, so it's hard to argue that it's constitutionally invalid. And, in fact, this ruling upholds the border search privilege; it just sets electronic devices outside of their reach.
- refurb 3y ago
  Exactly. It's a nuance most people don't understand. If you're crossing a border, customs having the right to search you isn't a silly idea - the government has the right to enforce customs and tax/duty laws. Being able to search items you are bringing across the border is in line with that. Where I think the nuance comes in is that carte blanche search rights don't make much sense in a era when they can search you electronic devices that aren't really related to customs and tax/duty laws.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    The argument here --- and we'll see how well it holds up on appeal --- is that searching a cellphone at the border is a little like driving to your house after your cross the border and searching it before they let you leave the border crossing.
  - 8ytecoder 3y ago
    The article actually talks about all of this and explains the why. Without repeating everything, the supreme court already makes this exception for cellphones domestically -as in police can search, let's say, a car but need warrant for the cellphone in the car. Makes sense to extend the same distinction to the border. That's all what the EFF is asking. But SC has refused to take it up.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
crote 3y ago
> Once you demonstrate that you are in fact a citizen of the US As history has shown[0], this is easier said than done. Legally US citizens can't be deported or denied entry, but that sure doesn't stop the government from trying! [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Americans_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Americans_from_...
- 93po 3y ago
  Also doesn't stop the US government from drone striking Americans without due process.
  - deathanatos 3y ago
    …and just to add to this list (and to get back to "deny entry into your own country"), … it doesn't stop the government from putting you on the no-fly list to prevent you from testifying at trail against the government.[1] (I believe the government claimed this was an "error", … but that's exactly what you'd say.) [1]: https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/latif_et_al._v._holder_et_al._-_plaintiffs_second_notice_of_supplemental_authority_-_exhibit_a.pdf https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/lati..., "The bench trial then began on December 2, 2013. On the first day of trial, before opening statements, plaintiff’s counsel reported that plaintiff’s daughter — a United States citizen born in the United States and a witness disclosed on her witness list — was not permitted to board her flight from Kuala Lumpur to attend trial, evidently because she too was on a no-fly list." ; https://reason.com/2013/12/04/wanting-to-testify-in-no-fly-list-lawsui/ https://reason.com/2013/12/04/wanting-to-testify-in-no-fly-l...
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      This case is different from the others and from the rest of the thread because the injured party is a nonimmigrant alien.
      - deathanatos 3y ago
atourgates 3y ago
I got an interesting perspective on citizenship late at night at a remote Canadian border post. While I have dual citizenship, I live and work in the US, and nearly always travel on my US passport. The boarder guard gave me a hard time about traveling with my children and without my spouse, but after ascertaining that I wasn't abducting my own children in a custodial dispute, let me in, and then got chatty. He said something along the lines of, "I could tell you were annoyed that I had to call your wife, but if your kids ever went missing, you'd be glad that we checked." Since we were just having a chat and he seemed friendly, I let him know that I was a dual-citizen, and asked a few questions I'd had about dual-citizens crossing boarders. One of them was, "would it have made any difference if I was coming into Canada as a Canadian, instead of an American?" His answer was, "As a foreigner, I can deny your entry into Canada for all sorts of reasons. As a Canadian, I have to let you into Canada so long as I don't have reason to doubt the authenticity of your citizenship. Basically, if I think you're a foreign criminal, I can deny you entry. If I believe you're a Canadian criminal, I have to let you in then arrest you." BTW, he also let me know that the biggest reason that dual-citizens should travel on the passport of the country they reside in is hassles over import duties. AKA, if I'd been entering as a Canadian driving a US registered vehicle into Canada, he would have been suspicious that I was importing it, and likely to charge me import duties, or at least given me more of a hassle about making sure it was going back to the US at the end of our weekend camping trip.
- csomar 3y ago
  I don't think the officer was over-reaching in this case. Kids are a complicated matter since if you "abducted" your own kids the first thing you'd do is run out of the country. Of course, no officer will want that to happen on his watch.
  - atourgates 3y ago
    I'm of two minds. Obviously, if my children were ever abducted, I'd want every law enforcement officer everywhere looking for them, and doing whatever was necessary to find them. On the other hand, I dislike the construct that I as a parent am required to have a "permission slip" from my wife to take my kids camping north of the border. Honestly, I think this could pretty easily be solved with a technological solution. Just some (optional) system where parents can alert the government of neighboring countries "I trust my spouse and they can cross the border with my kids at any time" or "we're in a custody arrangement/domestic dispute don't let them through!" Tie it to the digital info they already have related to passports, and this becomes frictionless.
mikeweiss 3y ago
Yes you will enter the country no matter what, but people should not forget that a CBP inspection during entry is still a law enforcement encounter and could result in criminal liability just like any encounter with police.
troad 3y ago
> This is good, and I hope it stands. Once you demonstrate that you are in fact a citizen of the US, you cannot be denied entry, and IMO all the regular Constitutional protections should immediately apply. I'm chuffed about this, but I won't celebrate until the decision applies to non-citizens crossing the border too. Right now a border official can tell a non-US citizen to do absolutely anything, and if they fail to comply they can simply be denied entry, with no reasonable right of appeal, no matter how unreasonable the border official's request. Border officials do and will continue to abuse that privilege until reined in.

jamesdwilson 3y ago

serious q, i legit don't know about these things, what about that ambiguous gray area i see so-called freedom auditors use where they argue that the Agent has no reason to suspect they are not american, (and they repeat am i free to go/ am i being detained)

Arrath 3y ago
I can't honestly see how there is grey area, you're at a border checkpoint: show some form of identification either way? There is no requirement for an agent to assume your nationality and let you through, no? You still need to show your passport even when returning home. Of course, all this sovereign citizen nonsense ignores reality and tries to pursue (nonexistent) legal 'gotchas' like you're rules-lawyering your way into a 'rules as written' game breaking combo in Magic: The Gathering.
- jamesdwilson 3y ago
  Well the evidence is there on youtube if you'd like, lots and lots of videos of border patrol letting people go who show no ID at all. Seems to support the auditor's POV. I have no dog in this fight, just an intellectual curiosity.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    I don't really trust YT as a source for any kind of facts. CBP is pretty specific about documentation required to enter the country. If you're a citizen and you lack any documentation, you're going to be sitting around for hours while they determine (to their satisfaction) that you're who you claim to be. It would also only really apply at a land crossing, I imagine. You can't even get on a plane that's entering the US without showing your passport at the departure gate. At that point your only option if you really are without documentation is to find the nearest US consulate and get some travel papers.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      > CBP is pretty specific about documentation required to enter the country. My last flight to Seattle from Mexico a few weeks ago (also, note that I'm an LPR, and not a citizen) I walked up to the CBP immigration counter, looked at a webcam, the officer looked at his computer, said "[my name]?" "Yes." "You're good to go." I had, of course, my passport and green card on me, but they were held by my side the entire time. He didn't ask for them.
      - woobar 3y ago
        They have linked your face to the photo in your passport/green card. By looking into the camera you agreed for them to perform the lookup of your ID. It is probably more secure than looking at a physical ID that could be fake.
      - ricktdotorg 3y ago
        green card holder here, this exact thing happened to me last time i flew into US from EU. i even asked the CBP guy, "you don't need to see my passport or green card"? "nope" was the response as he waved me through.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      We're not talking about entering the country; we're talking about CBP's absurd "interior checkpoints". They'll set up roadblocks on a random highway well inside Texas or Arizona or whatever, and stop everyone driving by to ask them about their citizenship status. You don't really have to "trust YT" here; there are plenty of videos of the encounters themselves, where people stubbornly refuse to answer the CBP agent's questions until the agent gives up and waves them through. Sure, you can argue that they're staged or something, but the sheer number of them would at least put some doubt on that claim.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Yes, that sounds like horrible advice. Trust your legal standing to some video you saw on YT (said no lawyer ever).
    - jamesdwilson 3y ago
      I never suggested to follow any advice from youtube and I don't think your take is charitable.
  - flerchin 3y ago
    This is at Border Patrol Interior checkpoints. At which you are not required to do anything except stop and ask them to let you leave.
    - chasd00 3y ago
      Can confirm. I’ve been through a number of those checkpoints in SW Texas. You stop they ask a question or two and then you’re waved through. I’ve never been asked to show ID. On one occasion they did have a dog walk around the car but I think that is done randomly. /before people ask: I’m white my wife is Mexican.
- jamesdwilson 3y ago
  Also I never said anything about sovereign citizens. I think many of these people are constitutionalists and libertarians.
  - SllX 3y ago
    “Am I being detained?” is a bit of a meme/dog whistle associated with Sovereign Citizens so I was going to ask you about if “Freedom Auditors” is just another term for them up above until I saw this follow up comment; but Googling it just turned up First Amendment auditors which does not appear to be the same thing. Many of them are libertarians and think they’re Constitutionalists. Please clarify if I’ve got the wrong read on what you mean though.
    - woah 3y ago
      It’s also a very basic question to ask. Once you have been arrested, there is a procedure to be followed and you will probably choose to get a lawyer. At the same time, they can’t detain you for longer than is reasonable without officially arresting you. So some may try to exploit the ambiguity of a situation to make you think that you are not free to leave, but without explicitly detaining you. Asking this question forces them to start engaging in the proper procedure for detention or arrest, or admit that you are free to go.
      - SllX 3y ago
        That is reasonable and solid life advice, but seeing it in a sentence with a phrase I don’t know like “freedom auditors” still leaves me confused as to the meaning of the latter, and that’s where my mind went first until I saw the parent’s follow up. Like I said, the best I’ve found is some information on a movement of “First Amendment auditors” but a literal reading of what they’re about has them testing First Amendment jurisprudence which isn’t exactly stress-testing your Fourth Amendment rights in an reentry line at the border, hence the request for clarification.
    - yardie 3y ago
      I'm neither a Sovereign Citizen or Constitutionalist. I've used the "Am I being detained?" question whenever the LEO starts to get too informal with me with leading questions.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  True as such, but remember that universal passports have been around for barely more than a century. In previous eras entry to a country was not considered important government business other than during wartime. That all changed in 1920. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/a-history-of-the-passport https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/a-history-...
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    There have always been border controls. Before precise land borders became a thing, the checkpoints were more likely to be at natural bottlenecks such as bridges, mountain passes, harbors, and city gates. Even in the period of supposedly free international travel before WW1, the US government barred a large number of people from entering the country.
- kelnos 3y ago
  I don't think the grandparent is talking about the requirement to present a passport at a port of entry (airport, border land crossing, etc.). They're talking about CBP checkpoints in the interior of the US -- like, on a random highway well inside Texas or Arizona -- where they stop everyone driving by and ask them if they are US citizens. There are plenty of videos on YouTube of people sitting in their cars and just repeating "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" over and over until the CBP officer gets tired of it and lets them go. As should be the case, IMO; the existence of these checkpoints is absurd.
alex_lav 3y ago
IANAL, but it seems to be pretty well documented and agreed upon internationally that one must produce documents to enter a country. To arrive at a border crossing or port of entry and assert the border agent does not have probable cause to ask for documents just doesn't really seem like a grey area at all. The "freedom auditors" are expressing their rights to doing things that are _defined as legal_ but regularly infringed upon (taking pictures of public property like police station lobbies, post offices and libraries). Refusing to show documents at a port of entry isn't ever defined as legal, AFAICT. Now, this federal ruling is kind of unrelated. It's not about asking for documentation, it's about the ability to search an arrested person's phone after they've been arrested.
rootusrootus 3y ago
The ID requirement to gain entry is fairly specific. I can't imagine CBP just letting someone through without it. I understand some people do the 'am I free to go' bit with local police, but that's after you're inside the country. To be clear, I think it's 100% okay for the border patrol to require proof of citizenship at the border. I just think that the moment you prove it, the border patrol becomes just like any other federal police force, no extra powers just because they're at the border.
- akomtu 3y ago
  > can't imagine CBP just letting someone through without it Depends on the border that you're trying to cross.
- reaperman 3y ago
  Obviously you can come back into the country without a passport/ID, it’s just a hassle. It’s not like they send you back and now you have no citizenship. They have a process for this, it just takes a long time to manually confirm you are who you say you are.
- CPLX 3y ago
  In actual practice though they don’t. If you walk across the bridge from Mexico after a night out 99 times out of 100 they’ll just ask your citizenship verbally and if you speak English without an accent they wave you on.

readthenotes1 3y ago

" Once you demonstrate that you are in fact a citizen of the US, you cannot be denied entry, and IMO all the regular Constitutional protections should immediately apply." I am not a constitutional scholar, but very few of the rights given to the government specify citenzry as important. Most of the rights specified as not granted refer to people or persons, not citizens. So your sentence should be "once you demonstrate that you are in fact a person in the United States..."

Georgelemental 3y ago
A non-citizen doesn't have any inherent right to enter the country at all. If they are allowed to, it's a privilege generously granted by the state—and as a privilege, it's entirely conditional and revocable. That being said, guests of the country must always be treated fairly and honestly, just as you would treat a guest in your home.
- LastTrain 3y ago
  You are almost entirely wrong, of course. Visitors in the US do indeed have rights.
  - thrwawy74 3y ago
    For comradery, I'm loving where this is going. I do wish we more consciously accepted that all persons have inherent rights. Looking forward to a world gov that tries to do good things someday... a la Bicentennial Man.
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    Sure they do, just not the right to enter the United States.
  - lazyasciiart 3y ago
    No, they are 100% correct. People who want to enter the country are not visitors in the US, by definition. And the comment didn’t say that even aspiring visitors to the US have no rights - it said they have no right to enter the country.

tptacek 3y ago

The border search privilege applied at the time of the founders, so it's hard to argue that it's constitutionally invalid. And, in fact, this ruling upholds the border search privilege; it just sets electronic devices outside of their reach.

refurb 3y ago
Exactly. It's a nuance most people don't understand. If you're crossing a border, customs having the right to search you isn't a silly idea - the government has the right to enforce customs and tax/duty laws. Being able to search items you are bringing across the border is in line with that. Where I think the nuance comes in is that carte blanche search rights don't make much sense in a era when they can search you electronic devices that aren't really related to customs and tax/duty laws.
- tptacek 3y ago
  The argument here --- and we'll see how well it holds up on appeal --- is that searching a cellphone at the border is a little like driving to your house after your cross the border and searching it before they let you leave the border crossing.
- 8ytecoder 3y ago
  The article actually talks about all of this and explains the why. Without repeating everything, the supreme court already makes this exception for cellphones domestically -as in police can search, let's say, a car but need warrant for the cellphone in the car. Makes sense to extend the same distinction to the border. That's all what the EFF is asking. But SC has refused to take it up.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

crote 3y ago

> Once you demonstrate that you are in fact a citizen of the US As history has shown[0], this is easier said than done. Legally US citizens can't be deported or denied entry, but that sure doesn't stop the government from trying! [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Americans_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Americans_from_...

93po 3y ago
Also doesn't stop the US government from drone striking Americans without due process.
- deathanatos 3y ago
  …and just to add to this list (and to get back to "deny entry into your own country"), … it doesn't stop the government from putting you on the no-fly list to prevent you from testifying at trail against the government.[1] (I believe the government claimed this was an "error", … but that's exactly what you'd say.) [1]: https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/latif_et_al._v._holder_et_al._-_plaintiffs_second_notice_of_supplemental_authority_-_exhibit_a.pdf https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/lati..., "The bench trial then began on December 2, 2013. On the first day of trial, before opening statements, plaintiff’s counsel reported that plaintiff’s daughter — a United States citizen born in the United States and a witness disclosed on her witness list — was not permitted to board her flight from Kuala Lumpur to attend trial, evidently because she too was on a no-fly list." ; https://reason.com/2013/12/04/wanting-to-testify-in-no-fly-list-lawsui/ https://reason.com/2013/12/04/wanting-to-testify-in-no-fly-l...
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    This case is different from the others and from the rest of the thread because the injured party is a nonimmigrant alien.
    - deathanatos 3y ago

atourgates 3y ago

I got an interesting perspective on citizenship late at night at a remote Canadian border post. While I have dual citizenship, I live and work in the US, and nearly always travel on my US passport. The boarder guard gave me a hard time about traveling with my children and without my spouse, but after ascertaining that I wasn't abducting my own children in a custodial dispute, let me in, and then got chatty. He said something along the lines of, "I could tell you were annoyed that I had to call your wife, but if your kids ever went missing, you'd be glad that we checked." Since we were just having a chat and he seemed friendly, I let him know that I was a dual-citizen, and asked a few questions I'd had about dual-citizens crossing boarders. One of them was, "would it have made any difference if I was coming into Canada as a Canadian, instead of an American?" His answer was, "As a foreigner, I can deny your entry into Canada for all sorts of reasons. As a Canadian, I have to let you into Canada so long as I don't have reason to doubt the authenticity of your citizenship. Basically, if I think you're a foreign criminal, I can deny you entry. If I believe you're a Canadian criminal, I have to let you in then arrest you." BTW, he also let me know that the biggest reason that dual-citizens should travel on the passport of the country they reside in is hassles over import duties. AKA, if I'd been entering as a Canadian driving a US registered vehicle into Canada, he would have been suspicious that I was importing it, and likely to charge me import duties, or at least given me more of a hassle about making sure it was going back to the US at the end of our weekend camping trip.

csomar 3y ago
I don't think the officer was over-reaching in this case. Kids are a complicated matter since if you "abducted" your own kids the first thing you'd do is run out of the country. Of course, no officer will want that to happen on his watch.
- atourgates 3y ago
  I'm of two minds. Obviously, if my children were ever abducted, I'd want every law enforcement officer everywhere looking for them, and doing whatever was necessary to find them. On the other hand, I dislike the construct that I as a parent am required to have a "permission slip" from my wife to take my kids camping north of the border. Honestly, I think this could pretty easily be solved with a technological solution. Just some (optional) system where parents can alert the government of neighboring countries "I trust my spouse and they can cross the border with my kids at any time" or "we're in a custody arrangement/domestic dispute don't let them through!" Tie it to the digital info they already have related to passports, and this becomes frictionless.

mikeweiss 3y ago

Yes you will enter the country no matter what, but people should not forget that a CBP inspection during entry is still a law enforcement encounter and could result in criminal liability just like any encounter with police.

troad 3y ago

> This is good, and I hope it stands. Once you demonstrate that you are in fact a citizen of the US, you cannot be denied entry, and IMO all the regular Constitutional protections should immediately apply. I'm chuffed about this, but I won't celebrate until the decision applies to non-citizens crossing the border too. Right now a border official can tell a non-US citizen to do absolutely anything, and if they fail to comply they can simply be denied entry, with no reasonable right of appeal, no matter how unreasonable the border official's request. Border officials do and will continue to abuse that privilege until reined in.