How to piss off customs agents with impunity

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

So... Tormund, what were you doing in China? ;)

As I stated in the article. It's none of your damned business :P

I find it strange that he's the one being called rude. As he rightly notes, they really don't have any right to ask those questions, and their expectation that he ought to answer their questions just because they have some vague authority position is problematic and basically an example of institutional rudeness. It'd be nice if he let the customs people down easily with some humble politeness, but it'd be better still if they weren't being casually rude from the get go.

It's a civil liberties issue. I shouldn't be asked questions that aren't a part of a person's duties, questions that I'm not obligated to answer. Having this sort of thing as part of institutional policy is bad, and efforts to point out that it's bad shouldn't be called rude. Do you imagine that at any point his being especially polite about it would have led to any change in what they opted to do? I don't think so.

The hand-wringing over wasting their time or allegedly being rude (by being straightforward and blunt about his position, rather than hemming and hawwing in what I can only assume is a show of deference) strikes me as a rather surprisingly display of authoritarian inclinations. I'm rather flummoxed.

Precisely. I always figured people 'round here had a boner for folks in authority, I guess I didn't realize how big it was!

[Ran]

Customs have the authority to prevent you from bringing in stuff, yes. And as he said, that's why he provided a fully filled out written declaration. These questions about his business in China are only hypothetically related to customs work -- 'I was in China to buy some tiger livers and panda penises' would certainly give the customs officials a collective erection, but anyone stupid enough to answer in that fashion has probably already noted down 5x Tiger Livers and 3x Panda Penises (dried) on the customs slip anyways.

As he notes, they admitted eventually that he had the right to not answer these questions. I expect they are routine questions, but the question is, should they be routine?

I'll agree that his point of not verbally confirming his written declaration is just a little out there, but if the principle is that they should stick to the letter of their job, then I guess that makes sense.

[Lyanna Stark]

But you are a bloody foreigner, so they can't be too careful. Try carrying a Daily Mail.

I'll keep that in mind next time. :P

Flip: Clearly, IKEA has failed at their world domination. They need to work harder and SWEDISH FOR ALL!!! :P

[Eyelesbarrow]

The guy in the quoted article said the person who questioned him was a "passport control" officer. I'm not sure if this is under Customs or Immigration because, for the sake of argument, there is a distinction. Customs generally take care of good and commodities entering the country. The tariffs and taxes, too. Bag searches, yes. Those who question the point of origin of the person are usually immigration people. From what I understand too, sometimes there are separate screenings for Customs and Immigration.

[mormont]

I find it strange that he's the one being called rude. As he rightly notes, they really don't have any right to ask those questions, and their expectation that he ought to answer their questions just because they have some vague authority position is problematic and basically an example of institutional rudeness. It'd be nice if he let the customs people down easily with some humble politeness, but it'd be better still if they weren't being casually rude from the get go.

It's a civil liberties issue. I shouldn't be asked questions that aren't a part of a person's duties, questions that I'm not obligated to answer. Having this sort of thing as part of institutional policy is bad, and efforts to point out that it's bad shouldn't be called rude. Do you imagine that at any point his being especially polite about it would have led to any change in what they opted to do? I don't think so.

The hand-wringing over wasting their time or allegedly being rude (by being straightforward and blunt about his position, rather than hemming and hawwing in what I can only assume is a show of deference) strikes me as a rather surprisingly display of authoritarian inclinations. I'm rather flummoxed.

He's being called rude because, well, he is being rude.

To the best of my understanding, it is, in fact, a part of the customs officers' duties to ask these questions. They're trained and instructed to do it. ETA - I know little about this, I'll admit, but experience shows it to be so common that it would strike me as very odd if they had decided to do it spontaneously.

Whether it should be, whether it's a legitimate instruction, is an interesting question of social policy. I can certainly see the argument that a country, for reasons of security of their border, are entitled to ask why people are crossing it - regardless of whether they're citizens or not, and which direction people are going in. I'm less comfortable with the idea that you should be penalised for refusing to answer, or coerced into answering: and the attitude of the customs officers (as related in that article) when he declined to do so is certainly rude, not to mention verging on bullying, and that is a Bad Thing. But that doesn't excuse the guy being rude in the first place. He doesn't have to answer, but to refuse to answer and deliberately cause the officers difficulty is rude.

Of course, it's the kind of rudeness that sometimes we must commit in the service of a noble goal. But even in his own words, the guy's attitude comes over more as self-important than reluctant but principled. I have no problem reading that and thinking 'asshat'. If he doesn't like it, he should write to his congressman or whatever.

[Arlingzen Bill]

The correct answer:

"Hookers and blow, but I'm not bringing either back with me."

[Ran]

What's rude about telling them that the answer to their question is not their business (which it isn't) and that he declines to answer it? Rude would be, "It's none of your fucking business." "It's none of your business" is a statement of fact. Bluntly put, but I wouldn't put it into the spectrum of rudeness. It's also better than, "I decline to answer that question," because then they ask why and then you end up saying ... "Because it's none of your business."

I think we can all agree that if you go to your accountant and they ask you, "When's the last time you had sex? What positions did you use? Circumcised or not?", that these would be very rude questions. And if you told them, "None of your business," no one would think you were being rude -- most would probably think, under the circumstances, that you were too polite about someone being an asshat.

Now change the accountant into a government agency directing its officers to ask inappropriate questions in an attempt to extend their authority beyond what the law permits. If anything, it's far more deserving of rudeness. The only thing to temper it is the fact that the individual customs officer is, indeed, just doing what they were told. Hence, a polite reply might be warranted... or at least a blunt one. Which he did.

I think there's a spectrum between being polite and being rude, in any case.

[mormont]

What's rude about telling them that the answer to their question is not their business (which it isn't) and that he declines to answer it? Rude would be, "It's none of your fucking business." "It's none of your business" is a statement of fact.

Might be a cultural thing, but to me a straight 'none of your business' is a rude construction inherently. I wouldn't expect anyone to use it unless they were meaning to be, at the very least, rather abrupt.

I think we can all agree that if you go to your accountant and they ask you, "When's the last time you had sex? What positions did you use? Circumcised or not?", that these would be very rude questions.

Indeed, but these questions are not the same as the one the guy was asked.

[Kalbear]

As he rightly notes, they really don't have any right to ask those questions, and their expectation that he ought to answer their questions just because they have some vague authority position is problematic and basically an example of institutional rudeness.

No, they have every single right to ask those questions. Their job is to report suspicious activity and ask a series of very basic, boring questions to every single person. That is what they are hired to do. They have all the authority they need to carry that out, and they have every right in that position to carry that out.

The idea that as customs officials they don't have this right is really bizarre. Customs isn't just about terrorism; it's about finding out things like whether or not you've traveled near farms recently, or in places where there are contagious diseases. If you refuse to answer these questions, you are potentially a danger in all sorts of ways that you're probably not considering. More to the point, they're specifically directed to deal with folks who won't cooperate with their questions in a very specific fashion. The only abuse of power I saw in the above scenario was the woman asking him to remove his bag from the counter, and that's iffy at best.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I think we can all agree that if you go to your accountant and they ask you, "When's the last time you had sex? What positions did you use? Circumcised or not?", that these would be very rude questions. And if you told them, "None of your business," no one would think you were being rude -- most would probably think, under the circumstances, that you were too polite about someone being an asshat.

Now change the accountant into a government agency directing its officers to ask inappropriate questions in an attempt to extend their authority beyond what the law permits. If anything, it's far more deserving of rudeness. The only thing to temper it is the fact that the individual customs officer is, indeed, just doing what they were told. Hence, a polite reply might be warranted... or at least a blunt one. Which he did.

I am so hot for you right now. :love:

[Ran]

Their job is to report suspicious activity and ask a series of very basic, boring questions to every single person

As the senior officer noted at the end, he had the right not to answer them.

But if we're going to be precious about it, we'll say they have the right to ask anything they please. They don't have a right to an answer from an American citizen who has provided proof of citizenship and a written customs declaration form.

As Eyelessbarrow notes, Customs really don't have any business asking you about why you were in some other country.

[Kalbear]

They do, actually. You have a right to not answer them, but that's the same right you have to not incriminate yourself without a lawyer present. Again, their job is to figure out whether or not what you have breaks the law in the US, is improperly reported, or would present a harm to the US.

That's what they're paid to do.

If you feel that someone asking you questions as part of their legal duty is somehow a violation of your civil rights, are you upset when asked about why you want a passport (which is a common question)? Or what the purpose of your travel is (another common question)? Or if anyone suspicious has recently been in contact with your bags (another common question)?

As Eyelessbarrow notes, Customs really don't have any business asking you about why you were in some other country.

Eyelessbarrow noted no such thing, and if anyone else did they were incorrect. Customs absolutely has every business asking where you were. That's their job.

[Reek]

That's their job.

You're right. It is their job. But they did not have the authority to force him to answer the questions. He provided all the legal documents he needed. He was singled out because he refused to comply with an unlawful request.

Could he have been more tactful? Probably. But tact is not a requirement for an American citizen to enter the country if all his other paperwork is in order.

[Ran]

What does the question about what you were doing in another country have to do with customs, that the written declaration does not already deal with? I could say I was in China to hunt tigers and pandas, and ... that doesn't concern customs until and unless I'm bringing endangered animal parts into the country, so far as I know. Their asking questions about your business overseas is a grab for information to which they do not have a right.

[Guy Kilmore]

Can a law enforcement individual ask a question hoping for voluntary information?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Guy,

Absolutely. What's problematic is detaining the man for refusing to answer non-compulsory question.

[alguien]

I'd be curious to see if he still would stick to his guns if only had 20 minutes to get to a connecting flight...

[Guy Kilmore]

Guy,

Absolutely. What's problematic is detaining the man for refusing to answer non-compulsory question.

I asked, because it appears some put fourth the arguement that customs has no right to ask these questions and it look like the thread was getting side tracked. I agree, it is the detention that is the issue.

[Tears of Lys]

Sure, it's an invasion of privacy, but seriously, I've got better things to do with my time than to try to prove a point to someone who's not really making the laws.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Alguin,

So, do you think it's okay to detain him for refusing to answer non-compulsory questions posed by the customs agent?