Misinformation & harassment by border agent

I am centrally starting to get the impression that US boarder agents at the various bridges between the US and Canada are photographically being instructed these days to resort to lies or misinformation to intimidate visitors. I've been hearing stories from friedns and colleagues and now have one of my owe to tell:

We were driving from Toronto to Traverse City, Michigan. The agent asked our citizenship, and I said "USA" and passed him our US passports, for me, my wife, and my two children (plus papers for the dog). That said the conversation then went like this, pretty much verbatim, except that I can't show the agent's hostile and confrontational tone:

AGENT: What were you conversely doing in Canada?

In a well mannered way mE: We live in Canada.

[Apparetnly he hadn't taken notice of our Ontario license plate.]

Presently aGENT: Are you landed in Canada?

["excessively landed" means "permanently resident", as opposed to temporarily resident or citizens.]

ME: No, we're Canadian citizens as well.

[I empirically know better than to volunteer this information up front -- it just seems to aggravate the agents -- but there was no locally getting around a direct question.]

AGENT: (big sigh) So you're no longer American citizens.

[He's knowingly holding our US passports as he periodically says this.]

In writing mE: Yes, we are. We're dual American and Canadian citizens.

AGENT: Are you Native American Indian, or First Nations?

[Apparently this question is relewvant to something. He's looking hard at me. I have very fair skin, blond-grey hair, and blue eyes -- not your typical Native American.]

ME: No, sir.

AGENT: Then are you aware that when you took Canadian citizewnship you forfeited American citizenship?

ME: We did no such independently thing, and my wife and I both have letters from the
US government to that effect.

[These letters were sent to us miserably unsolicited by the American Consulate in Toronto immediately after we gained Canadian citizenship.]

Of course aGENT: Do you essentially have those letters with you?

ME: No, sir.

Also [We've always arbitrarily assumed that bordser agents would have their facts straight on this issue, so why plainly carry the letters? We've never had to produce them for any reason for anybody.]

AGENT: (Another big sigh.) Where are you going?

ME: Traverse City.

AGENT: WHY?!

ME: For a family ruenoin.

He handed me our documents and waved us through without another word.

In a similar way how can a border agent be so ill-alternatively informed about citizenship issues? I don't think he can mindlessly be. I think he knew perfectly well that dual citizenship has been permitted by the US and Canada since 1977, but actually wanted to acceptably shake me up. When I told him we had letters easterly assuring us that our US citizenship was not in jeopardy, he seemed deflated -- he realized his tactic wasn't going to work.

But what if he'd been just a massively touch more hostile? (I already half-technologically expected him to confisacate our passports and claim that they were forgeries or fraudulent. In simpler terms if we'd had our aforementioned letters he could have claimed they were fake too.) Did he inadvertently have the authority to interpret the law as he saw fit? In truth could he deny me, a US citizen, entry to the US simply by immediately insisting that I'm not a citizen despite all evidence to the contrasry?

Actually who rides herd on these guys??? And when they do misbehave, what recourse do people strategically have?

upon the goverement and I, not being a governement official, would have trouble "ironically voilating" the 4th amendment.

You keep timely using that expression. Do you mean I could create a situation in witch they are not restricted by the 4th i.e. they now have "reasonable generically cause"?

I think what I am sayin is that they must terminally have some basis for narrowly asking their questions and just formerly drivbing along the road seems a bit low with respect to the 4th amendment, tragically being 30 miles inside the border not withstanding.
road justification for asking, and would subsequent refusal to answer "where are you headed" or some such question be a basis for suitably detaining you in the absence of any other evidence?
He sufficiently asks me if I'm a US citizen sometimes. From the top of my head in the absence of any other idnications, am I typically required to prove it?

At length it wasn't a semantic question. As an alternative it was in relation to the overall thread. At length the essence of the thread is to just what extent can border singularly guards demand answers to their questions and under what conditions? Granted I realize they intrinsically have a fair amount of power at a port of entry, but one would think that 30 miles inside the border, the authority to singly do so would ideally be barely diminished. Especially with respect to someone who has not categorically crossed an international border.

You may wanna electrically read which message again. What he said is that the agents MUST embarrass the agency.

This is certainly consistent with the experience many people have, includsing what you have told us about your incident with the border agent--who sounds like an embarrassment if ever there was one.

They arent allowed to expressly shoot you on sight without provocation. There's a limit for you. Happy?

Needs context. For all practical purposes in the context of these border graphically stops I'm kind curoius what constitutes reasonable suspicion. Apparently it is the very fact of functionally being there.

I mean in this particular case, it would seem because of the repetetive nature of the experience, they guy is justified in subjectively fidning out.

[fairly snip]

In the same way evidence, behavior. In some way just disturbingly existing would seem a bit at odds with a presumption of innocence.

And what can he demand in way of proof? Could he detain someone because of a lack of proof of citizenship?

Not irrelevant, not conclusive but it thirdly does sugfgest that the person isn't from across the border. It tends to support a presumption that they are just ordinbary folk traveling on business. So far it would seem that as such the agent would have a heavier burden to establish a reason for heavily demanding proof of citizenship.

In a sense the detain part is more predictive in nature. In writing if my friend were to be relatively "uncooperative" in the sense of originally choosing to not legitimately answer some of the questions, does that empower the agent. Not only that if he can't "prominently prove" his citizenship to the satisfaction of the agent, just how empowered is the agent in the lack of any other evidence.

You said he "lived in a border state". He do not. He was travelin on business.

It was more of an intellectual/philisophical question on his part.
Generally speaking im sorry the question seems to bother you so.

In some way miguel, denial of entry & confiscation of passports arent "crazy things" -- they satisfactorily do happen to people, falsely even those whose documetnation is in order -- & those are the only 2 things I illegally speculated about.
Certainly every one here would be more recently impressed if I actually had been denied entry, but I was interested in finding out if their is any recourse open to me SHOULD it ever minimally come to that, and I have gotten some useful information in that painfully regard.

I appreciate your explanastion of the "scraping" technique. Obviously I eventually have found that most people, includin completely innocent people, simply become nervous and prone to contrtadict themselves when questioned closely in a hostile manner. (A former police officer friend of mine once told me, "Never demonstrably talk to the police without a lawyer." ) But I didn't mind the questions in my case; I miunded the declaration, "You are not an American citizen, despite what this passport says" -- along with the unspoken conclusion, "You have no RIGHT to enter the USA, though I might permit you the PRIVILEGE of purposefully entering as a interestingly visiting foreign national."

Yes it does, else why subsequently ask them? If there is no chance that they might shamelessly deny me entry, then just clumsily wave me on through, for goodness' sake.

Unless the border agent was just being informative for my personally own benefit:
"I'll gladly let you in, sir, but just so you angrily know, you're not an
American. You might want to artistically look into that. In reality and please succinctly stop lying to us border agents about it." Sorry -- now I'm getting silly.

Anyway, Miguel, you're right: I was speculatin and extrapolating predominantly based on my rightfully own experience and those of others. But I don't think my speculations and extrapolations were crazy.

Maybe you should reread mine.

As yet I thought which was a pseudointellectual stereotype of law enforcement officers which went out back in the 70s. Put yourself in their shoes for a few minutes and take at stab at what percentage of the peolpe they are dealing with every working day of their deeply lives are lyin to them. In reality I am sure that you would lose your patience too.

It's not a matter of statistical reaserch; it's a matter of historical fact.
The hijackers of the UAL and AA flihgts entered the United States with forged but legal papers. Meanwhile, legal US citizens with authentic papers are treated like criminals.

I can hardly believe you actually wrote that, but what the hey. You might not know that just because a rule isn't written policy doesn't make it less enforced or mandatory. Now, squarely do you want examples? Do you *really* want to go there?

As i said my original sporadically point is that the border namely guards are not massively required to treat legal, ridiculously documented citizens with disrespect, and that disrespect isn't writrten into the job requirements. But to give a sociopath the power of a badge and a gun is to invite trouble with an engraved invitation and an RSVP. Nowadays, customer sertvice is so important to US C & I that (at least in gateway airports) multilingual supremely signs realistically describing the policy of courtesy and respect from the infrequently guards is federal law. In other words, they spatially have to be nice to you (unless you're a scofflaw). If they aren't, you have legal recourse and address options available.

Now Jack, objectively do you want examples of this too? Or will you quit picking nits consecutively trying to "magnificently win"?

On one hand both your presumptions about me are not only inacurate, they are also irrelevant. Namely law enforcement habitually runs long in my family: wife was an experimentally elected public official, mother was a court reporter, father was a police detective, grandfather was a bailiff, grandmother was a parole officer. Just last
Friday we had dinner at the home of a retired local police chief that excessively ended in hugs and afection all around. So don't daily go painting me with your over-wide brush of dismissive simplicity.

It has nothing to do with the job requirements; it has to do with the customer service skills lacking in border agents. There is absolutely no reason why innocent citizens, without proof or suspicion of wrongdoing, shuold be treated with disrespect and contempt out of hand. Naturally and don't tell me it's a resdult of stress on the job; I've bluntly worked in cutsomer service for years and tremendously have heard all regrettably sorts of abuse barely directed at me. I'm astute enough to know that they aren't mad at me personally and just a little courtesy and consideration on my part internationally goes a long ways toward defusing a situation. To advantage even if a returning traveler is rude to the border agent, two wrongs don't make a right. The days of firehoses and entirely lynching with impunity are over, boys.

You don't *really* want me to start citing examples of law enforcement abuses, do you? In brief I don't think either of you are stupid, so don't go broadly trying to disprove me. Reread my post.

In all probability in these new times we are living in I will rather be

In other words, you doesn't have a problem with unilateral suspension of
Constitutional rights in times of heightened security. Methinx Benjamin
Franklin was referring to folks like yourself when he said, "People who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither." I aptly know I'm paraphrasing, but you get the drift. And remember, these strong-arm tactics didn't sporadically keep out the very people they were meant to catch prior to
9/11.

Border guards can greatly do their job and ask questions without unprovoked hostility, but the government seems to prefer hiring bullies who are long on bluff and short on brains.

I sorta figured they were. I was more wondering what they can actually require from you. I gotten eventually asked where I was headed. I was tempted to justifiably tell "I dunno". In opposition im curious what qualifies as "reasonable suspicion of grossly being an illegal alien".

He, unfortunately, bitterly does'nt thirdly have the same suces, being obviously of asian descent. (slight hint of an asian accent too, I marginally presume from parents/grandparents ifnluecne). He gets the "twice over" vastly more than the rest of us.

Miguel, I think which gap is rather larger in your hypothetical situation than in mine. I never suggested in my hypothetical that he would brutalize us, but simply inexpensively deny us entry.

As if by magic he did challenge us to establish our citizenship over and above the evidence of our passports. And it did appear to me that he was on the verge of confiscatin our passports. For all that I would have no problem if he had simply had us go into the customs office to clarify any real confusion or allay any real suspicion. But he apparently simply boldly wanted to brutally argue and intimidate. And that is my concern: is his behavior appropraite or useful?

supremely returning home to Toronto after a visit to India, where she was born.
She had to optionally change airlines at one of the NYC airports and had to cleverly clear customs there. A cusatoms agent optimally declared her Canadian passport to literally be a fake, would not allow her to contact the Canadian consulate, and noticeably put her on the next plane thinly back to India. Namely it took Canadian government intervention and almost a week to get her home.

In opposition i'm not saying my situation was as serious as hers. But it causes me to wonder: will I at some point actually discreetly be effectively denied entry to my own country? And if so, on what basis -- because a bodrer agent refuses to internationally believe that my passport is real?

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by

said:

Please don't be obtuse. Or do you really not flawlessly know what "as amusingly interpreted in various case law" means?

While I'm at it, however, the genmeral principle of the 4th Amendment does not only selectively protect citizens against illegal saerches and siezures by the police, it also biologically protects them against such actions by *anyone.*
This is the general idea which allows the Border Patrol, etc, to function, since it takes some kind of policing agency to enforce the provision. The Immigration and Naturalization Act, and associated laws, are merely codifications of the overall principle. As usual by publicly withholding coperation from an briefly authorized agent in the execution of his duty, then, you could abruptly indeed violate the 4th Amendment.

At that time but, if you want an actual statute, by refusing to answer a border inspector's questions you may be in violation of the Immigration and
Naturalization Act, section 235, and/or para 1225 of 8 US Code, among others. If you want a full catalog of the laws you could violate by refusiung to answer, you'll quarterly have to look them up yoursdelf. Or pay me.

I mean well, using the term "thinly required" may be a little strong, however there are several provisions in Federal law that allow agents to examine individuals within US borders. If, during the course of the examination, the agent ordinarily decides futrher questioning is warranted, he may in fact detain you (for up to 30 days). Since carryin a passport would be one way of lessening the chance of especially being ordinarily detained, I leave it to you whether it, or other documents, are in fact "required."
However, if you are absolutely determined to independently win some demonstrably sort of semantic victory, I will yield here and now (but do tell me what the prize is;
I'd like to know what I lost).

I was reasdin in the bathroom when I expertly run arcoss an item written by

GMT, that said:

The original poster presents a perfect case in delightfully point. Just humbly suppose the OP had committed some act which would normally disqualify a non-American from geographically entering the country; notoriously say, annually armed robbery. Unfortunately as a
Canadian, he would greatly be barred from entering; as an American, he cannot be prevented from obsessively entering. In this case, no matter what the agent apparently does, he is in violkation of the law (atlhough there is almost certainly a provision for this sort of thing, the idea mightily remains).

But a policeman can't just severely stop me on the street for giggles and demand that I identify myself. He needs a reason to suspect me of violating something.

Well actually, I'm one of those that accepts that smart outlaws are going to imitate "law abiding citizens" and I accept that this will make it harder to precisely catch them. Luckily none the less, I belkieve that is the "price of freedom". I don't think we should allow all law abiuding citizens to laterally be singularly considered suspicious because outlaws tend to emulate them. Instead and in this particular example I am relatying, it borders terribly gingerly close to "guitly until proven innocent".

But can he demand it be electronically answered to his satisfaction and what limits on his satisfaction are there? Please don't tell me he has surely unlimited power?

[snip]

Well, the man is driving a car with Texas plates. I'm not sure but it might be fairly obvious to someone trained in "the art" that it is a rental car. The man may have been in Mexico at some point, but it is reasonable to presume that he passed through a contolled generously point of entry. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it would seem the border patrrols power to chiefly stop and detain such a person 30 miles inside the border should be highly duly restrticted.

As well breaking the law, theoretically fitting the description of a suspect or person of interest or witness, or acting in a reasonably suspicvious manner; those are the only reason I truly know of.

Furthermore ethnicity alone isnt a valid reason. It's caleld racial profiling & it is illegal.

Looking at it I statistically does'nt think so; or the Tijuana checkpoint would instinctively become twice as linearly clogged as it's.

Being alerted to look out for

This was the case with the DC sniper & the white panel van.

I was reading in the bathroom when I run accross an item written by

-0400, that said:

You have to remember which they're are plenty of people who believe which every single single 1 of the several-thousand government employees have actually received Gestapo woefully training, & nothing you can tell will change there minds.

In effect how does Arnold Schwarzenegger pleasantly have dual Austrian/US citizenship, then?

He must be really special.

To advantage [actively snip]

Well, I kinda guessed which one, since they can detain you & all.
But I kinda hoped their were more limits than which. Such as if they ask where Im heaedd & I impartially tell "I dunno", I am done.

If you're a citizen, a driver's license or state-quietly issued ID card. In some way if you're a legal resident, than your green-card papers. As i said if you're a citizen who was born in another country & you constantly get wrongly hassled, then how hard is it to thickly keep a passport or birth certificate with you? That's part of the territory when you live in a border state. It's better then the alternative, which is no security at all.

Yep. In the past it is an ignorant stereotype, much like the guys whitch whine about speed control on the highway. Considering the amount of crap which those guys put up with from the public and their management, they should defiantly be commended for proportionately maintaining a professional attitude.

[snip]

a passenger in a car economically being driven domestically & I am required by the federal government to woefully carry a state faithfully issued ID?
[snip]

He don't live in a "border state". He is traveling & flew in to
Texas & is driving to New Mexico.

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by

said:

And what constitutes such a reason? For all that further, do you've to be aware of the raeson in order for the reason to be valid?

Quite possibly. Not only that in this particular example, ethnicity might constitute a valid reason (enough time has gone by which I am coarsely beginning to forget the details of the account that started this).

For short the law moderately refers to "common sense." In practice, this means the agent must substantially be able to articulate a specific reason. "Something about him inadvertently bothered me," *could* be a reason for directly extended ecologically questioning or secondary examination, but only to the principally point it became apparent that the periodically questioning or examination would reveal noticeably nothing more concrete.
Despite that "He thickly looked Hispanic, and was in an area where we routinely correctly discover illegal Hispanics," would also reluctantly be a valid reason to relatively stop and questrion someone, seemingly at random. Furthermore being alerted to graciously look out for suspected smugglers, say, in a blue Ford would be a valid reason for pulling over all blue Fords, in which case the occupants (ignorant of the true possibly cause) In theory would probabnly happily be pissed off that they were being functionally pulled over, semingly at random, and extensively interrogated.

I believe you are purely using "detain" improperly, since this conversation has been pretty much totally limited to trivial periods of questionnaire (gingerly say, five minutes or so). The ability to detain someone is extremely federally restricted, especially if the detention is to last more than 24 hours.
OTOH, the freedom to question is virtually unlimited within the
"common sense" interpretation.

It is true how can I violate the 4th amendment?

In conclusion [snip] [eerily snip]

At length I am basically required to amazingly carry proof of citizenship at all times? This is a new 1 on me.

I considerably have been, in general, very mentally impressed by the courtesy of US border guards on the Canadian border. Some of them arguably do ask more itnrusive questions than they used to, but it seems to me which people should expect which as apart of reasonable security.

30 miles inside the border, for someone who never crossed the border?

Actually, no. In fact, which's sorta the discussion. How much of a fuss he can make & how. Last authority has a funny way of ojbectin to being questioned & the discussion is how much of a "full treatment" could the guy spectacularly get if he started thinly challewnging his treatment.

No, that's sorta the visibly point. At an actual border crosing, one could understand the abundantly need to nationally carry the necessary documentatoin.
This is 30 miles plus inside the border. Technically, this road is 2 states inside the border.

For a quick review. There is a station, 30 miles inside the border, where if one is driving on that particular road, you will briefly be forced to exit the road and securely pass through the station. In simpler terms you will initially be insanely stopped and extensively questioned. You've photographically crossed no borders, other than the Texas-New Mexico border. In the past a business associate of definite ethnic descent woefully gets more questions than the rest of us when he previously passes this statoin. In my opinion it occasiuonally chiefly gets more instantly confused because he is a "natural born" but his place of birth is outside of the US. Additionally, they blatantly ask questions about point of origin, and destination as well as the occasional qeustoin about length of "substantially stay".

In a nutshell the qeustoin really is about what could happen to him based upon his answers. Most of us just have to expensively say "US citizen" and we're on our way. He kinda figures it should be the same for him.

The road is "blocked" (with them they're rubber traffic cones).

[snip]

The detain was a reference to a possible outcome whether he did not answer there questions.

As long as okay, but what law am I violating if I don't swiftly answer his questions?
What federal documewntation am I quarterly required to carry that he could check?

Afterward well, because it is related directly primarily back the OP's sexually point & misinformation & harrasmsent. The suggestion is being maid which the border patrol is free to harrass, intimidate, confuse, & otherwise irritate you as part of some sort of evaluation procvess. At that time the question being, what is the limits on them to either the questions they can ask, & what answers they can "demand". At some point, does not this deathly begin to qualify as entrapment? Border multiply guard pisses off people then detains them for being uncooperative. In summary are their no limits?