How to piss off customs agents with impunity

[Relic]

Relic,

Absolutely, they aren't entitled to that information. Would you just give information you consider private to anyone who asked. Should you have to justify your refusal to give that information to a stranger who is not legally entitled to that information?

Scot, it's all about levels and degrees. The more general the question the less of an issue i have with it. Ideally, there would be no questions, but this seems like the wrong segment of the control chain to attack if you want that to change.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Relic,

I recognize the officers are, generally, doing what they are told. Regardless, they don't have the authority to require the answer they act as though they have the authority to require. Is it their fault they are misinformed, no, should I and everyone else accede to the assertion of authority they don't have, no we shouldn't. As Tormund says if no one challeges they get the authority by default. That's a problem.

[Relic]

Scot, or course we need to question authority. I was telling you that for 8 long years =P.

I think in this case the guy was being a douche and a letter to his congressman would probably have served everyone better.

[AutumnEvenings]

One of the questions he refused to answer was "did you pack your bags yourself?". I mean, I think customs and immigration are pretty dumb (when I brought African-born cat home with me from the Peace Corps, they didn't even ask to see her vaccination papers, and I was so worried they'd notice she was pregnant and give me crap about it :lol:) but come on, that's a pretty standard question with an obvious purpose behind it. If you didn't pack your bags, you have no real idea what's in there.

I'm a big believe in civil rights, but I think this guy (his tone, plus his actions) was just out there to piss people off for no reason. I don't think he's hoping to provoke change.

Also, the questions aren't "What exactly did you do, with whom, tell all details." It's more of a business vs. pleasure question. I've never (and I've travelled to "scandalous" countries post-9/11, such as Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, and Oman) been asked to elaborate beyond "pleasure" when re-entering. And yes, I'm a white non-hippy-looking girl, but still. Write a letter, don't waste everyone's time with grandstanding when you know it won't make a difference and there's no real harm in answering.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

A stand on what exactly? They don't even pay attention to the answer most of the time. It seems like a pretty petty thing to be obnoxious to someone over, especially someone with no control over policy.

Besides after experiencing South American Customs at work (the worst being in Bolivia) i don't think answering a couple of questions is a big deal.

I have experienced South American customs as well. I have no problem answering any and all questions when entering a foreign country. It's the questions when coming into your own country you should have a problem with. You have a right to be here, they do not have the right to deny you entry as long as you have a passport. They have a right to inspect the goods you bring into the country (accomplished in advance with a signed declaration form). With those two things, the only thing you should hear out of their mouth is "welcome back" or "we'll need to visually inspect your luggage". Anything else is NOT THEIR BUSINESS. The fact that they try to make it so, outside of what has been decided by law, is grounds for suspicion and firm resistance.

[Kalbear]

they do not have the right to deny you entry as long as you have a passport.

That is legally untrue. There are a large number of entirely legal reasons to deny you entry, and there were before 9/11. The notion that as long as you have a passport of the country you are going to allows you to enter that country without any other discourse is entirely a fantasy of your own creation.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Razor,

What, of the reasons you refer to as legitimate for denyin re-entry to the US, were present when this man went through customs?

[Shryke]

Razor,

What, of the reasons you refer to as legitimate for denyin re-entry to the US, were present when this man went through customs?

Isn't that what the questions seek to determine?

[Maester Yobjascz]

Wow...

Here's the deal: Border agents are charged with preventing people from bringing illegal or dangerous materials into the country. Obviously, not everyone follows the rules and declares everything they bring in. More importantly, people *may not realize* that they are bringing certain dangerous materials (i.e., insects) into the country. If you visited the countryside, or were there for agribusiness, insects dangerous to U.S. agriculture could be hitchhiking along without you being aware of it.

In order to determine whether there is a risk of such things, border agents ask where you've been and why you were there. This is part of their duty... is there a specific law enunciating these particular questions? Probably not. But it is in line with their mandated duties. So, yes... I would say that they are entitled to ask these questions.

As to the second part... Border agents (customs & immigration) are not *entitled* to answers to their questions, this is true. American citizens have a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. If you refuse to answer a question, that is within your rights and you may do so.

However, exercising that right does not guarantee free passage without any hassle. Border agents *are* granted police powers, including the right to detain. If they have a reasonable suspicion that a violation is taking place, they have a legal power to detain you while they make that determination. They process thousands of people per day, especially at a major terminus like San Francisco. They have no idea who any of these individual people are, and they have no reason to trust any of them. So when a guy refuses to provide any verbal answers whatsoever, there's an arguable reason to be suspicious and detain him.

Now, such detentions are supposed to be limited. If they did in fact extend his detention with the sole purpose of causing him grief, then that extra time would be improper. However, SFO is a major international airport, and it wouldn't surprise me if they put checking his things at the end of the line. That said, he was apparently detained for only an hour or two... pretty far from what usually raises eyebrows from a legal perspective. They checked his bags, didn't find anything to warrant further suspicion, and released him.

Now, perhaps I'm reading more into this, but this seems to encompass my issues with libertarianism. This guy knew he wasn't doing anything illegal and hadn't been anywhere problematic. The problem is when he then assumes that the border agents should know that as well... which they can't. He writes that he presented his written declaration as if that should be enough. If that were the case, then he should be okay with the border crossing consisting of a drop-box for the written declarations and a counter at which to self-stamp your passport before walking on into the country.

[Maester Yobjascz]

I have experienced South American customs as well. I have no problem answering any and all questions when entering a foreign country. It's the questions when coming into your own country you should have a problem with. You have a right to be here, they do not have the right to deny you entry as long as you have a passport. They have a right to inspect the goods you bring into the country (accomplished in advance with a signed declaration form). With those two things, the only thing you should hear out of their mouth is "welcome back" or "we'll need to visually inspect your luggage". Anything else is NOT THEIR BUSINESS. The fact that they try to make it so, outside of what has been decided by law, is grounds for suspicion and firm resistance.

Actually, Tormund, signing a declaration is not the equivalent of them inspecting whatever you have brought back with you. It's a luxury approach, provided by the government, to try and streamline the process and make it more enjoyable. Rather than simply inspecting every piece of your luggage, clothing, and subjecting you to a full-cavity search, the government has instead opted to take your word... for the most part. They will allow you to declare what you are bringing with you in a signed declaration. That declaration is merely evidence... it is *not* conclusive on its own. If they have reason to suspect that you are lying or are simply misinformed, they can go ahead and conduct those other searches.

Part of determining whether there is reason to doubt your declaration is asking you a series of routine questions. If you answer them and don't raise any flags, they accept your declaration and that's the end of it. If you raise flags with your answers (or refusal to answer), they have reason to doubt your declaration. They're trying to make it *easier* for everyone involved by their approach.

If you would rather have your bags inspected than answer their questions, you should just tell them that and save the people in line behind you some time.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

No, that what the search of his lugage and baggage would deterimine.

MY,

He did not dispute the agents power to search his luggage and person. He did dispute their power to demand he answer their questions. I raised the question about the legality of his detention given the comment about letting him "cool off" for a while before they ot around to searchin his luggage and person as they are empowered to.

[Kalbear]

He did not dispute the agents power to search his luggage and person. He did dispute their power to demand he answer their questions. I raised the question about the legality of his detention given the comment about letting him "cool off" for a while before they ot around to searchin his luggage and person as they are empowered to.

They have a legal right to determine whether or not someone is worth inspecting further. Refusal to answer reasonable questions is a reasonable doubt situation. Again, you've got every right to not answer those questions just as much as you have every right to not answer a police's questions, but they also have the right to use that as suspicious behavior and hold you in detention until you lawyer up or 24 hours.

That is legally within the bounds.

And while they can say they're doing it so you can 'cool off' or whatever, that isn't necessarily the legal reason for doing so. That's likely just a nice bit telling you to not be a douchebag for the sake of douchebaggery.

It's shocking to me how many libertarian idealists want to act like complete dickholes and then get outraged when people treat them like dickholes. Do they think that lack of government authority is going to let them act with more impunity to people? Don't they understand that old aphorism that an armed society is a polite one?

[Maester Yobjascz]

He did not dispute the agents power to search his luggage and person. He did dispute their power to demand he answer their questions. I raised the question about the legality of his detention given the comment about letting him "cool off" for a while before they ot around to searchin his luggage and person as they are empowered to.

First off, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the agents asked him questions despite his refusal to cooperate... it's standard operating procedure in law enforcement. I'm sure they'd rather have him just answer the damn questions rather than have to go, collect his bags, and do a full inspection. Moreover, nowhere in his narrative does he state that they *demanded* answers. They asked him questions and he refused to answer. They were within their rights, and he within his.

As to the "cool off" comment... part of the problem is that this wasn't reported by a neutral observer... I doubt that the guy would blog that he was a raging ass, whether that was verbalized or simply part of his attitude. I don't know whether the agent actually thought the blogger needed to cool off, whether the agent was responding to the guy's jackassery by putting him at the end of the line, or whether the agent was in fact acting on some power trip. Maybe the agent was having a typically busy day at SFO customs and this guy pushed too many buttons, earning him an off-the-cuff "cool off" comment followed by a place in the waiting room while the agent added the guy's luggage to the end of the line of luggage to be inspected.

[Swordfish]

Like I said (and you ignored me Scot) it all depends on what the standard opperating procedures are.

If they are told they need to detain and investigate anyone uncoperative, then the answer is yes.

They are told to look for certain things, and this guy was very much on a power trip.

Yes, you don't have to answer the questions, but if you refuse then they seem to have the right to detain you, for a certain amount of time. He was not arrested. He was not charged.

I guess what we don't know here are what are the procedures? What are the officials taught? How much authority do they have?

And how much of that blog post is an accurate representation of events vs the desperate bravado of a man with low self esteem trying to pump himself up into a hero?

[Hereward]

So, no-one persuaded by my maxim about the glove, the lube and the authority to use it? You people are weird.

[Reek]

Well, is there any real reason for him NOT to answer a couple of vague questions?

Yeah, there is. It's none of their frikkin business.

[Shryke]

And how much of that blog post is an accurate representation of events vs the desperate bravado of a man with low self esteem trying to pump himself up into a hero?

Agreed. The tone and content of his post says alot about him and his attitude.

And really people, even if he was standing up to some terrible injustice, I doubt Rosa Parks would have helped her situation by replying with "Hell no I'm not moving seats you sister-fucking honkey. Go get sodomized to death with a steel pinecone!".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Yeah... that's the on the same level as "none of your business".

[Hereward]

Scot, I thought you were all about politeness in political discourse? Demos, etc. To me, "that's none of your business" is rude and inflammatory, which you usually oppose. Surely something more along the lines of "sir, I am not required to answer that question" would have made the same point without the hassle?

[Shryke]

And given the tone of his post, I have my doubts that's the only rude thing he said across the course of these events or that he was in any way polite about it.