
What happens when you refuse to answer a passport control officer's questions - abraham
http://knifetricks.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-am-detained-by-feds-for-not-answering.html
======
lionhearted
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_.

~~~
tomjen3
The moment you call anybody "sir" you are bowing to them.

~~~
JshWright
Using the word 'sir' when talking to someone you're not familiar with is
generally intended simply as a gesture of respect. It's not some sort of
submissive term.

My occupation puts me in positions of authority over strangers from time to
time. I pretty much always default to '"sir" and "m'am" in those cases.

~~~
tomjen3
Maybe it is cultural thing - nobody here calls a stranger sir.

"You" would seem to be more appropriate.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Where's "here"?

Personally the situation where I'm most likely to call someone sir is where
I'm giving them a forceful verbal put down. "With due respect sir that sort of
language is unacceptable here." or what have you.

I'm in the UK so also when addressing a Knight of the realm in a formal
setting.

A

~~~
arethuza
UK also here - I don't think I've ever used the word "sir" outside of a
humorous context.

------
rfrey
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.

~~~
jmspring
I've crossed the border a number of times myself. What has been amazing for me
over the last several years is the striking difference in demeanor between
foreign customs officers and those I deal with coming back into the US,
especially at the Canadian border.

Coming in and out of the US through the local major airport -- San Francisco
-- my experiences have been mixed coming in. Customs varies between nice and a
little bit surly, but never outright so.

However, when I drive or fly to Canada? Canadian customs is amazingly friendly
and welcoming -- even when crossing at odd hours like 2am when on a road trip.
However, coming back into the states, be it dealing with customs at the border
(major and minor crossing) or at the airport, I sometimes ask myself -- "why
do I live in this country?"

Customs has a hard job and dealing with a lot of people friendly to rude
during the day does take a toll. However, often times, these are the first
people that someone coming to visit the US encounters. I would hope for a good
first impression, but unfortunately that isn't always the case.

Going to Europe this winter it will be fun to compare and contrast again.

~~~
matwood
Every country is different.

In Tokyo I was through customs so fast I wasn't sure I was through.

Last time I entered Jamaica I was shaken down. After going back and forth for
a few minutes I realized it was a shake down and simply asked him "how much?"
$50 later and I was on my way. To make a long story short I had brought a few
gifts for friends who were meeting me there and the customs agent claimed I
was bringing items into the country to sell. Um yeah, I'm selling 4 towels?

In and out of Costa Rica was interesting. When I went I only took a backpack
and surfboards. They didn't say much entering the country and only checked out
the surfboard bag. Leaving the country they searched everything multiple times
prior to leaving (once at security then again plane side). They were all very
polite though.

Admittedly I don't do a lot of international travel but I've never had any
problems entering the US have always answered the 1-2 questions with yes/no
and "I'm glad to be back."

~~~
jmspring
Every country is different, but coming back into the US is a uniformly
annoying experience. From my experiene, US Customs/Border agents are at the
very least lacking any sort of friendliness with some sort of powertrip being
the norm.

Given these are some of the first people visitors to this country encounter, I
would hope they would be friendly and professional rather than surly and on an
power trip.

Every foreign country I have been to (mostly Europe and Canada) has been
friendlier and more welcoming than every single instance that I have had in
dealing with US customs upon re-entry. And, for the record, I am in the
"here's my passport" and answers questions crowd.

~~~
matwood
And I have experienced the exact opposite when entering US. The agents have
always been friendly and courteous. I wonder if it has to do with what airport
you enter the country from. All of my international flights end up going
through ATL.

------
poutine
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.

~~~
tptacek
As someone who used precisely this word to describe him, I'll say that it's
his attitude and his worldview that any cooperation with law enforcement is
fodder for a vast conspiracy to incarcerate him that motivated me. It is not
an abrogation of your civil liberaties to answer a question.

That said, I also recognize the value of what he did, and I'm glad there are
douchebags like him out there, exactly like Colbert's "Douchebag of Liberty"
segment about the guy who flips off patrol cops as a matter of policy. Thank
you, douchebags of liberty.

~~~
mattmaroon
The attitude and worldview I find more naive and paranoid than douche-baggish.
What really made me think "what a tool" me was quote "The CBP goons want U.S.
citizens to answer their questions as a ritualistic bow to their power."

It's the fundamental (and obviously incorrect) assumption that they're some
sort of thugs, rather than decent people just trying to do the job they are
paid and trained to do, that makes the author a certified douche bag.

~~~
dgordon
"It's the fundamental (and obviously incorrect) assumption that they're some
sort of thugs, rather than decent people just trying to do the job they are
paid and trained to do, that makes the author a certified douche bag."

I don't find that obviously incorrect. The banality of evil is probably the
most important lesson in human nature of the twentieth century, and it makes
many kinds of "decent people just trying to do the job they are paid and
trained to do" look a lot closer to thugs -- or at best their enablers.

Could he have done what he did in a less abrasive way? Probably so. But
refusing to go along with even little infringements on human liberty is an
essential part of eternal vigilance.

~~~
tptacek
Can you explain how you managed to transit from "The banality of evil is
probably the most important lesson" to "it's not obvious that the border
police aren't thugs"? Are people thugs by default in your worldview? Or just
all law enforcement officers?

~~~
barrkel
People in positions of power often act inadvertently thuggish, yes. It's in
the nature of positions of power and the human condition. It's why it's so
important to have checks and balances, and ensure that those checks and
balances are exercised regularly so that they don't get rusty from disuse.

Take the Nazis. It's not like every German was evil, or even that most Germans
were evil. It was the situation and structure that was evil, and the social
proof, and a hundred and one other things, that add up to decent people doing
monstrous evil.

Character really doesn't matter for as much as a lot of people like to think.
Almost everything people do comes down to their incentives and their
situation, from the lowest thug to the most noble statesman. Ascribing flaws
or nobility to character is a way of personalizing these situations, often to
justify treating people with very few options with harshness and cruelty,
while rewarding people in the position to do good with social standing and
wealth, etc.

~~~
tptacek
It doesn't help when you have a society led by Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler.
By which I mean to point out that Nazism is a silly comparison to make.

~~~
mattmaroon
Well, in fairness the thread did go on long enough to satisfy Goodwin's law.

------
tptacek
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
_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
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.

~~~
philwelch
"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."

No--you cannot ever be charged or convicted on the basis of asserting your
rights. Saying "you may not search my house" is _not_ grounds for a search
warrant, and exercising your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination
in a trial is _not_ grounds for conviction.

Physically or otherwise obstructing an actual police search in progress can be
illegal or serve as probable cause, but asserting your rights never is.

~~~
Natsu
> No--you cannot ever be charged or convicted on the basis of asserting your
> rights.

You can, however, be legally required to give cops your full, legal name. And
you may also be required to say that you are invoking your right to remain
silent (rather than simply keeping your mouth shut the whole time). Both have
been subject to litigation recently.

------
roboneal
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".

------
wccrawford
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
30 minutes is less time than I've spent actually entering the country through
that same airport.

------
jhghjnmmn
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
That is great! I bet it works like a free pass if you match their notion of a
NSA, CIA, NRO employee.

~~~
gjm11
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
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.

------
mmaunder
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.

------
Mz
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.

------
RuadhanMc
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.

------
noonespecial
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
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
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?

~~~
cperciva
_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.

~~~
daychilde
>They don't know that you're law-abiding, for one thing

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

~~~
cperciva
Police investigate lots of innocent people. If they only investigated people
who were already known to be guilty, they would never get anywhere.

~~~
Devilboy
Police are supposed to investigate crimes. Not arbitrary people.

~~~
cperciva
They're investigating lots of crimes. Drug smuggling, for example -- they know
it's happening, but they don't know who is doing it; and anyone entering the
country could have useful information about it or be a potential suspect.

~~~
Devilboy
So would you be OK with the police randomly picking members of the public to
investigate - just in case those people are doing something illegal somewhere?

------
dotBen
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.

------
mhd
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?

~~~
steveklabnik
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.

~~~
samfoo
Counter examples:

I fly in and out of the country all the time (I believe I've returned the the
US five times this year alone). I only ever have a backpack and it's not huge
and I never check any luggage. I'm not dressed in business clothes, nor do I
look particularly affluent. My passport is fully of "dangerous" countries
(Colombia, Guatemala, China, Russia...) and is as beat up an scruffy looking
as I am.

 _I have never once has trouble returning to the US._

In fact, I flew back from Mexico (several years ago, but post 9/11) without
anything but a driver's license and even then didn't have any problems other
than answering some reasonable questions.

I've heard anecdotally that it's more difficult for foreigners entering the
US, but that's to be expected. Pretty much every country on the planet is
harder for non-citizens to enter.

Oh, and for the record, I'm in Japan right now (for the first time) and their
CBP was far more serious than anywhere else I've been and took longer to
process everyone than anywhere I've been except Dulles (fuck that airport). I
was finger printed and photographed (yes, yes, I know the US does this for
non-citizens too) and this is highly atypical.

~~~
kelnos
I visited Japan last year, and while I was fingerprinted and photographed, the
process was very quick. I spent about the same amount of time at the customs
official's desk as I did when I returned home to the US, where I was asked the
typical none-of-their-business questions about my trip.

So there we are... more anecdotal non-evidence.

Actually, this reminds me of my return from a business trip to Amsterdam a
couple years ago. The customs official made some kind of drug-related
joke/question, which I didn't respond to (aside from just smiling slightly).
It made me a bit uncomfortable and felt like he was trying to get me to slip
up and say something I'd regret.

------
randallsquared
_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
"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
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----...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000004
----000-.html) \-- 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_.

------
ben1040
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.

------
mjgoins
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.

~~~
CGamesPlay
"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
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
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.

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

~~~
edanm
You obviously have some human rights. They can't (legally) harm you physically
without any reason, afaik.

~~~
hugh3
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.

------
acabal
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
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._

~~~
tptacek
You realize that just because he says that doesn't mean it's actually true,
right?

In fact, his argument for being brusque doesn't square with his argument for
the inalienability of his rights to silent re-entry. If he's right about the
latter, he has no reason to "assert the fact that he won't be pushed around";
he won't be pushed around either way.

I'm left with the conclusion that I'm reading about a major-league
douchebag... one who I'm glad is defining the frontiers of our rights as
citizens, but a douchebag nonetheless.

~~~
ghshephard
You're missing what I think is one of the primary points he's trying to make -
answering any of those questions instantly puts him at risk of lying to a
federal officer, which is a criminal act.

In order to be polite, you have to risk being a criminal. Ergo, it makes more
sense to be a little rude (and being silent isn't that rude, _particularly_ to
a federal officer - for them being silent is simply one of a series of
acceptable responses) and forgo the risk of criminal charges. Are you being a
douchebag to a police officer when you refuse consent to a search?

He also lists a number of countries in which Customs and Immigration believe
their job is "Customs and Immigration" and _not_ getting historical
biographical information.

There really is a fundamental privacy issue.

True Story:

I was crossing the border from Canada into the United States in 2003, and was
with a friend (an attractive blonde, Canadian, that I had declared our
relationship to be "friend") at a ground crossing (Peace Arch, in BC) - we
were pulled over for secondary, and went into the Immigration office. They
asked us a number of questions, all of which I answered to be the best of my
ability (I have neither the courage, nor moral fiber of the author - wish I
did) - and they were preparing to let us go. Just as we were packing up our
passports, and leaving, the Immigration Officer pulled a "Columbo" and said,
"Oh, one more thing - are you still dating that Red Head, Marjorie?" I was a
little floored - I had crossed the border _once_ with a (red headed)
girlfriend in 1999 - that information (that we were dating, the color of her
hair, her name) was clearly in a federal file on me, and they were using it to
get a reaction from my companion (who, thank goodness, was actually a friend
as I had described her).

So, from a privacy perspective, just be aware that as you answer all of these
questions, they are going into a federal database, that certainly can paint
quite a detailed pictured of your life. If you are willing to remain silent,
then they have less to enter into their database.

It's interesting how when people buck the status-quo, even just a little bit,
they get tagged with the "douchebag" title. God bless them.

EDIT: As a follow-on, I should note that as a Canadian, I really have no
excuse not to answer all questions asked by American Customs and Immigration,
but, very ironically, as a TN Computer Systems Analyst, I am almost _never_
asked any questions _whatsoever_ by American C&I, and the rare time they ask
me anything, it is always the single (very reasonable) "Who are you working
for". Returning to Canada, on the other hand, is an exercise in what did I do
in the US, where I'll be going, what I'll be doing, who I'll be staying with,
for how long, etc, etc...

~~~
tptacek
You have a drastically diminished expectation of privacy at the border,
because of the state's sovereign right to regulate those borders. This is a
large part of the reason why border police can search you at will; the
"reasonableness" of a search is largely delineated by the balance of the
state's legitimate interests in searching you against your expectation of
privacy.

You seem taken aback that the state would remember your previous border-
crossings. I'm actually impressed and sort of pleased that they're this on-
the-ball. It seems totally reasonable to me for the state to keep a record of
aliens crossing into the country.

And beyond that, it seems weird that _record keeping_ would shock your
conscience, but the fact that the border police can search the files on your
laptop without a warrant (which: they can, according to the 4th and 9th
circuit courts) doesn't warrant a mention.

Lawyer and patriot or not, this guy is living in a fantasy world, where the
"business or pleasure" question is a sticky spider web patrolled by venomous
legal monsters, but warrantless searches of his person, his body cavities, the
documents in his briefcase and the files on his computer are totally benign.

~~~
ciupicri
I don't think that searches are ok for him according to item no. 9 from his
update:

 _Moreover, the existence of the right of privacy is usually based on whether
people have a current expectation of privacy in a certain situation. To the
extent that people decline to assert their right of privacy, it slips away.
Lack of vigilance by citizens begets more government power._

~~~
tptacek
I'm not _of the opinion_ that my expectation of privacy is diminished at the
border. My expectation of privacy _is_ diminished at the border, because the
Supreme Court ruled that it is so, definitively.

------
alex_h
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.

------
kschua
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

------
dotBen
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.

------
jleyank
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
You watch too much TV.

------
nader
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
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
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
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
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.

~~~
JshWright
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"

------
bcaulf
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-
po...](http://freekeene.com/2010/06/08/a-thank-you-to-the-nashua-
police/#more-6333)

------
rakkhi
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

------
gokhan
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.

------
sudonim
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
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.

------
ripostee
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.

------
Tichy
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.

------
dawie
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.

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

------
itistoday
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
Federal cops are not _his_ servants; they're _our_ servants. There is a world
of difference between those statements.

~~~
steveklabnik
'He' is part of 'us,' so why wouldn't that follow?

~~~
tptacek
Because "we" have interests as a society that do not necessarily intersect
"his" interests.

~~~
steveklabnik
Fair enough.

------
mkramlich
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.

------
aneth
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.

------
lutorm
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...

------
viraptor
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
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
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.

~~~
ghshephard
How certain are you that you haven't just violated a law with that answer?
And, how certain are you that response won't be used against you in a criminal
case?

I'm actually serious - I don't have the legal background to understand whether
your response ""I do not want to answer this question, because I'm not
required to." would put me in legal peril.

~~~
viraptor
You have doubts against my answer - which is ok of course. Yet, you don't
question "none of your business", which is demonstrably worse in at least two
ways (social interaction, perceived aggression). Can you show why? Even for a
non-lawyer like me it shouts "verbal abuse of staff".

> how certain are you that response won't be used against you in a criminal
> case?

If there is a way to use that answer against me, I've already potentially lost
any and all cases against me. If such response can be used against you, why do
you believe your law to not answer will be honoured? You'll make a lot more
mistakes of saying something wrong while proving you're right, since you will
have to speak many more times. It is simply not a realistic scenario. You'll
have to assume some things are not a work of government against you, in order
to even begin fighting for freedom of not answering a simple question.

~~~
ghshephard
re: "None of your business" - Appeal to authority. The author is a Lawyer and
states that is an acceptable response. If you indicated you had legal
training, and that "...because I'm not required to " would not put you in
legal jeopardy, I'd take you at your word.

In general, saying less is probably the safest approach if you are concerned
about legal jeopardy. Not answering gives the individual interrogating you
less leverage. You do have a right to silence once the basics (Your identity)
are out of the way. Ironically, that is how the entire episode ended -
eventually a supervisor showed up and said precisely that "He has a right to
remain silent. Just inspect his luggage and let him go."

------
dot-sean
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!

