USA Citizens reentry into the USA and dealing with CBP 101
1. A USA Citizen Cannot Be Denied Re-Entry To Her Own Country.
A federal judge in Puerto Rico – a territory sensitive to the rights and privileges of its residents' USA citizenship — said it best: 'The only absolute and unqualified right of citizenship is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States; a citizen cannot be either deported or denied reentry. ' USA v. Valentine. 288 F. Supp. 957, 980 (D. P. R. 1968).
So, while some posters implied worried that a citizen who refused to answer CBP questions would be denied re-entry to the United States, the USA government does not have the power to prevent a citizen's re-entry.
2. (The Right To) Silence Is Golden.
This is principally about the right to silence. CBP officers are law enforcement (pictured) , who can detain you, arrest you and testify against you in criminal court. You place yourself in jeopardy every time you speak to them about anything.
CBP officers are not your friends. CBP officers treat returning USA citizens as potential criminal defendants. You should likewise treat them as if they were corrupt cops on a power trip, targeting you to goose their arrest statistics. The best way to protect yourself against their depredations is to refuse to speak to them or to answer their questions.
3. Any Misstatement To A Federal Officer Can Result In Your Arrest.
If a federal officer claims you lied to him, you can be arrested and charged with the crime of making false statements. You do not have to make the statements under oath (which would be the different charge of perjury).
This statute – which is referred to as Section 1001 — is the reason why Martha Stewart has a Bureau of Prisons number.
The only way to immunize yourself against a false statements charge is to refuse to speak to federal officers.
'Wait, ' you ask, 'what about telling the truth? ' Doesn't work. If, in the course of your conversation, you mis-remember something or speak inarticulately, you can now be arrested. Innocent mistake? Prove it in court after being jailed, charged, tried and paying for a lawyer.
Cardinal Richelieu is alleged to have said, 'If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. ' That's also how the false statement charge works. Any cop or prosecutor can concoct a 'lie' from your statements.
The only way to protect yourself from a false statement charge is to refuse to speak to federal law enforcement officers.
4. 'Business or Pleasure? ' Is A Trap.
Which brings us to the reason why, contrary to the belief of many commenters, the seemingly innocuous CBP question of whether your international trip was for business or pleasure is a trap.
You say 'business' (because you were at a conference) but the stamps in your passport indicate that you're returning from a tourist destination like Bali. Now the officer can argue that you have made a false statement, have engaged in an attempt to claim improper business deductions under the Internal Revenue Code and have broken any other federal criminal law — there are more than 10, 000 — which he can mold around the circumstances.
You and your travelling companion say 'pleasure' but you're returning from Antwerp, a city known for its diamond trade not its nightlife. Liars and smugglers! And, with two people involved, the feds can levy conspiracy and aiding and abetting charges.
[Clarification: I'm not saying these charges would stick. I'm saying they can be concocted because of purported inconsistencies in your story. My point is that the officer acting in bad faith wouldn't have that ammunition if you invoked your right to silence. ]
Answering the question also immediately opens you up to more questions, which can lead to more chances for the feds to claim that you said something suspicious, inconsistent or false.
(In addition, and this is very much a lawyer's objection, the question requests a legal conclusion. I have no idea how many federal laws create a distinction between business and pleasure travel or what standards are used. It's not my call.)
5. Politeness Would Make No Difference.
To the authoritarian mind, there are only two responses to a demand: submission or defiance, and anything less than total submission is defiance. A Lutheran grandmother from Savannah with manners from an antebellum finishing school would be hassled if she refused to answer CBP's questions.
Answering with a tart 'None of your business' underscores that I will not be pushed around and – potentially important from a criminal procedure perspective – is an unambiguous statement that I am not waiving any rights. It is a line in the linoleum.
Further, why is politeness a one-way street? The entire cop ethos is based on intimidation and domination. We should be able to give the officers a little of their own medicine, and, if they're as tough as they claim, they can take it.
6. There Is A Profound Difference Between A USA Citizen Entering a Foreign Country and a USA Citizen Re-Entering Her Own Country.
There is a distinction between a USA citizen entering a foreign country (where she can be refused entry for any reason or no reason) and a USA citizen returning to the USA (where she cannot, as noted in Item No. 1, be denied entrance). These are completely different situations with almost no overlap in terms of governing law, procedures, rights, anything.
7. The Other People In Line.
This is a bright red herring. To the extent any immigration or customs line is being slowed down by a citizen refusing to answer questions, it's because the CBP officer refuses to accept the fact that the citizen is lawfully exercising her rights (as several commenters noted).
As a practical matter, there's almost no hold up. When a citizen refuses to answer questions at the first CBP kiosk, she is ordered to secondary within a minute or two. The wait is less than it might be if a returning citizen submitted to questioning or had a complicated, multi-national family situation.
In addition, living in a free country means that sometimes you are inconvenienced by others' assertions of their rights. On occasion, you have to see advertisements for products you think are disgusting, have your morning commute hampered by a strike, or have to drive half a mile out of your way because of the GLBT parade.
8. Small, Successful Battles Can Prevent Large, Losing Battles.
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.
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.
9. Travellers Who Have Presented Proof of USA Citizenship Should Not Be Detained For Refusing To Answer Questions.
Once a traveler has provided bona fide proof of USA citizenship, he or she is entitled to re-enter the country. CBP should not be asking questions as a matter of course, and, if citizens assert the right to silence, CBP should not be detaining them.
NCAA Football and MFL Football
Where can you watch all the football games this weekend in Medellin?
