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.
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.
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.
I am baffled that you would interpret statements that "it makes a difference" to mean "it confers immunity". Of course it does not confer immunity. But it does make a difference. The author of the piece strikes me as extremely contemptuous. I imagine he attracts a lot of negative behavior from people without having any clue that he did anything to encourage it.
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.
Politeness works fine with many people in many circustances, and it has bought me out of a few pinches. I've seen a cop's face go from suspicious anger to placidity from a smooth handling of their concerns. I'd wager that most of the time, politeness won't hurt and sometimes it will help. Sometimes though you're right, particularly with law enforcement, if someone is in a bad mood and on a power trip it will not make one iota of difference. What I took from this is to pay attention, there's no need to consistently clam up like this guy does, but remember it's an option because sometimes it may be necessary.
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.
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.
You don't answer an officials first question with "None of your business" unless you're being a dick, trying to get in trouble, or trying to pick a fight with them.
Just tell them what they want to hear in wooly non-descriptive language.
She only asked "Why were you in China" for god sake. Just answer "I like China".
These moral crusader 'principle of the thing' types irritate the hell out of me.
I went to an American High School for a year and noticed that compared to Swedes, Americans tend to really respect authority. I was screamed at by a history teacher for calling him "Newell" when I should have said "Mr. Newell" (in Sweden we don't do this, so it's easy to forget).
Swedes tend to be naïve when it comes to the government though, but that might be because compared to the USA the rate of corruption in Swedish government is low.
But yeah, from experience I've found that Americans demand customer service from the private sector, but never from the public sector. What is up with that?
Perhaps that's because where you see "asserting his rights" I just see an attention-seeking lawyer lording himself over low-paid fellow human beings with a dull and thankless task to perform.
You can "assert your rights" all you want, and those include the right to be a douchebag. If I meet you at a bar and I say "Hi, how are you?" and you say "Screw you, I don't have to answer your questions!" you're well within your rights but still a douchebag. It's nice to know you have the legal right to do something stupid (burn a koran or stand on a street corner in Harlem with a sign that says "I hate niggers") but putting those legal rights to the test may still make you a douchebag.
Also, I'm considering it from the point of view of the hundreds of people who were no doubt stuck behind him in the line while he threw his little hissy fit.
Funny, I feel the exact opposite. I'm horrified that people would consider this asserting his rights rather than being a douche.
Asserting your rights is not moving to the back of the bus because your skin is the wrong color. Not just telling some customs guy who gets paid $12 an hour to answer questions mandated by Congress the answer to some insignificant questions is just being a douche.
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.
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.
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.)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm not sure about US citizens but of all the places I travel to, the experience of entering the US is the worst of all. I'm a UK citizen and we supposedly have a visa arrangement that should negate any hassle but it frequently takes more than an hour to clear border control.
During which time you have sniffer dogs almost clawing you and really aggressive questioning. I'm sure this must have a negative effect on the tourism industry as most people I know have had similar experiences.
I've just come back from traveling around Asia and they seem to take the opposite approach and employ polite and helpful people to work in border security, often when you're traveling this is the first impression you get of a country and bad experiences really leave a bad taste.
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.
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.
"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.)
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.
I agree, would it have killed him to just say "business" when asked about his trip -- he reveals exactly nothing by saying that.
He got away with this only because he is a white, native English speaker.
You have remarkably few rights at a border crossing. Four to six hours detentions have been ruled by courts as ok as routine searches, and invasive body cavity searches can be performed without a warrant with the vaguest suspicion.
Here is a well researched report on what courts have ruled are your rights when crossing the border.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf
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.
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
[+] [-] lionhearted|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] thaumaturgy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rfrey|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Mz|15 years ago|reply
I am baffled that you would interpret statements that "it makes a difference" to mean "it confers immunity". Of course it does not confer immunity. But it does make a difference. The author of the piece strikes me as extremely contemptuous. I imagine he attracts a lot of negative behavior from people without having any clue that he did anything to encourage it.
[+] [-] jmspring|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] flatline|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tkeller|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] poutine|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] points|15 years ago|reply
You don't answer an officials first question with "None of your business" unless you're being a dick, trying to get in trouble, or trying to pick a fight with them.
Just tell them what they want to hear in wooly non-descriptive language.
She only asked "Why were you in China" for god sake. Just answer "I like China".
These moral crusader 'principle of the thing' types irritate the hell out of me.
[+] [-] arvinjoar|15 years ago|reply
Swedes tend to be naïve when it comes to the government though, but that might be because compared to the USA the rate of corruption in Swedish government is low.
But yeah, from experience I've found that Americans demand customer service from the private sector, but never from the public sector. What is up with that?
[+] [-] hugh3|15 years ago|reply
You can "assert your rights" all you want, and those include the right to be a douchebag. If I meet you at a bar and I say "Hi, how are you?" and you say "Screw you, I don't have to answer your questions!" you're well within your rights but still a douchebag. It's nice to know you have the legal right to do something stupid (burn a koran or stand on a street corner in Harlem with a sign that says "I hate niggers") but putting those legal rights to the test may still make you a douchebag.
Also, I'm considering it from the point of view of the hundreds of people who were no doubt stuck behind him in the line while he threw his little hissy fit.
[+] [-] mattmaroon|15 years ago|reply
Asserting your rights is not moving to the back of the bus because your skin is the wrong color. Not just telling some customs guy who gets paid $12 an hour to answer questions mandated by Congress the answer to some insignificant questions is just being a douche.
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
/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.
[+] [-] tkeller|15 years ago|reply
Yes, for which he cites a trial court in Puerto Rico. Very convincing...
I'm not saying he's wrong, but isn't there binding authority on this point? Instead of just something that's only relevant *inside Puerto Rico"?
[+] [-] roboneal|15 years ago|reply
You are not obligated to sit meekly while your rights are being nibbled at or outright violated by "people just doing their jobs".
[+] [-] wccrawford|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jhghjnmmn|15 years ago|reply
It works well if you can do it with a straight face!
[+] [-] asmithmd1|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmaunder|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mz|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reneherse|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thaumaturgy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dotBen|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steveklabnik|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rossriley|15 years ago|reply
During which time you have sniffer dogs almost clawing you and really aggressive questioning. I'm sure this must have a negative effect on the tourism industry as most people I know have had similar experiences.
I've just come back from traveling around Asia and they seem to take the opposite approach and employ polite and helpful people to work in border security, often when you're traveling this is the first impression you get of a country and bad experiences really leave a bad taste.
[+] [-] qwzybug|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randallsquared|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
What do you think police can do? He cites case law that indicates police can't prevent you from re-entering the country.
[+] [-] ben1040|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjgoins|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrtron|15 years ago|reply
I don't think you should always take the path of least resistance.
[+] [-] CGamesPlay|15 years ago|reply
(I suspect I agree with your sentiment, but your post is vague on your actual opinion of the matter.)
[+] [-] thaumaturgy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen3|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Emore|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edanm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acabal|15 years ago|reply
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|15 years ago|reply
To the authoritarian mind, there are only two responses to a demand: submission or defiance, and anything less than total submission is defiance.
[+] [-] asmithmd1|15 years ago|reply
He got away with this only because he is a white, native English speaker.
You have remarkably few rights at a border crossing. Four to six hours detentions have been ruled by courts as ok as routine searches, and invasive body cavity searches can be performed without a warrant with the vaguest suspicion. Here is a well researched report on what courts have ruled are your rights when crossing the border. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf
[+] [-] alex_h|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kschua|15 years ago|reply
The former would still be asserting his right, but in a more polite way