Montreal Border Crossing

[corco]

for me, the Canadians are cold but professional.  the US folks - coming back from Canada - always give me the whole 9 yards.  I've been held for an hour and a half, and when I noted that I had to use the bathroom, the interrogating officer just made some remarks on his pad of paper. 

You're not a US Citizen though, right? They probably see "Hungary" and that flags the sketchy Eastern European former communist anti-terrorism alarm (even if Hungary is a perfectly stable EU nation at this point) even if you have a green card and are a permanent resident.

I feel like my dealings with US Customs have generally been a lot more pleasant than with CBSA- the US has only secondaried me once and that was a 2 AM crossing with two other 18 year olds, all of us unshowered and unshaven and in a car registered in Idaho, driving from Quebec into Vermont- we were pretty much asking for a secondary in that case (and it was still the friendliest secondary I've ever gotten- they were cracking jokes with us as the casually searched our car for beer- at that time of night there were only two folks on staff so we had to just stand by our car while they searched).

[deathtopumpkins]

That's understandable. I'd even expect them to find that suspicious, and maybe use it as cause to ask me a few more questions.

That doesn't make it okay for him to tell me my travel plans are stupid though.

This is the kind of situation where it would be useful to have a transcript of what was actually said, just to get a more precise idea of the motivations underlying the various questions.  In the absence of a more detailed understanding of the context, I would tend to interpret the characterization of your itinerary as "stupid" as an attempt to provoke you into saying something that would give them a reason for additional search.  The question then becomes:  what about your car or you and the people with you might have given the CBP officers the impression that looking at you more closely would be fruitful?

I probably will record my next interaction with them, based on this experience. Never thought I'd need to though.

As for why they might think that, I really have no idea. My car was fairly clean (messy inside, but hey, we were on a long road trip) and respectable, I do have a beard that I think it had been a few days since I'd trimmed, but I'd showered recently and was dressed casually but not like a bum. The only person I was with was my mother, who I think also looks quite respectable, and, while she doesn't have any stamps in this passport book, has extensively traveled abroad in the past. Unless they found a 20-year-old traveling with a woman twice his age questionable (even with our passports, from which they could surely quickly figure out that I was her son), I can't imagine it was because of some way we looked.

[corco]

I definitely wouldn't risk the hassle you'll get if they think you're recording the crossing based on that comment. They're abrupt, and they'll ask questions and say shit to try to trip you up. That's what they do. It's an easy, effective way to determine whether or not you're lying. If they thought you looked like a good, honest kid who doesn't want to get in trouble, I could easily see them chastising you for your driving length to see if you'll break down with a different truth. I'm 95% sure that's all it was and I'd let it go or write a letter to CBSA if that makes you feel better. Don't risk getting caught recording the crossing though- that's just going to make your life hell.

Even if you have a "right" to do it (I don't think you as a US Citizen has any rights beyond basic international law entering Canada), it's something you really need to consider whether it's worth exercising that ability before you do it, because the consequences will end up being a pain in the ass.

[J N Winkler]

As for why they might think that, I really have no idea. My car was fairly clean (messy inside, but hey, we were on a long road trip) and respectable, I do have a beard that I think it had been a few days since I'd trimmed, but I'd showered recently and was dressed casually but not like a bum. The only person I was with was my mother, who I think also looks quite respectable, and, while she doesn't have any stamps in this passport book, has extensively traveled abroad in the past. Unless they found a 20-year-old traveling with a woman twice his age questionable (even with our passports, from which they could surely quickly figure out that I was her son), I can't imagine it was because of some way we looked.

It sounds curiouser and curiouser--it is even more unusual for a family group to receive that kind of treatment than a person travelling alone, which is my usual scenario when crossing the border (and yes, I have a beard).

I definitely wouldn't risk the hassle you'll get if they think you're recording the crossing based on that comment.

I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable encouraging someone to try to "bug" the immigration interview and Customs search.  Even if it is not explicitly banned, it is almost impossible to know what equipment may be in use to detect covert operation of electronic devices, and being caught doing that--even if it is legal--is enough to convert a perfectly routine crossing into an experience that is memorable in all kinds of unwelcome ways.

What I would suggest instead is taking down detailed notes immediately after clearing the frontier post, while the experience is still fresh.

I don't remember whether the US attempts to ban casual use of electronic devices in the areas where port-of-entry functions are being carried out (e.g. talking on a cellphone when standing in the passport control queue), but in Britain mobile phone usage in front of the passport control desks is forbidden, with signs posted to that effect.

They're abrupt, and they'll ask questions and say shit to try to trip you up. That's what they do. It's an easy, effective way to determine whether or not you're lying. If they thought you looked like a good, honest kid who doesn't want to get in trouble, I could easily see them chastising you for your driving length to see if you'll break down with a different truth.

I don't think it is actually all that plausible.  What DTP described is essentially the first stage of a Reid interrogation--denounce the suspect to his face, putting him in the wrong and refusing to allow him to defend himself, before you move on to minimization and confession.  It is very rare (and, in my experience, completely unknown) for the entry interview to start that way.  This is why others have suggested CBP was acting on intelligence; it is also why I wonder whether there was something said or done (probably inadvertently) that led the CBP officer to conclude that DTP and his mother were persons of interest.

Even if you have a "right" to do it (I don't think you as a US Citizen has any rights beyond basic international law entering Canada), it's something you really need to consider whether it's worth exercising that ability before you do it, because the consequences will end up being a pain in the ass.

His difficult interview was not while entering Canada, but rather while returning to the US.

Judging from the experiences others have had, I must be a "honorary Canadian" since it is when I return to the US that the experience is usually less than pleasant.  I have always found the Canadian officials to be polite at minimum, and usually cheerful, although they have a script that they run through without fail (Alcohol?  Tobacco?  Goods to be consumed or left in Canada?).  With the US officials the Canadian minimum is the American maximum:  more often curt and abrupt than polite.

[realjd]

That's understandable. I'd even expect them to find that suspicious, and maybe use it as cause to ask me a few more questions.

That doesn't make it okay for him to tell me my travel plans are stupid though.

This is the kind of situation where it would be useful to have a transcript of what was actually said, just to get a more precise idea of the motivations underlying the various questions.  In the absence of a more detailed understanding of the context, I would tend to interpret the characterization of your itinerary as "stupid" as an attempt to provoke you into saying something that would give them a reason for additional search.  The question then becomes:  what about your car or you and the people with you might have given the CBP officers the impression that looking at you more closely would be fruitful?

Well put. My first thought was also that the CBP officer was being intentionally antagonistic as a basic interrogation technique.

It sounds like everyone was being scrutinized that day though which is what lead me to believe they were acting on specific intelligence.

[empirestate]

I don't remember whether the US attempts to ban casual use of electronic devices in the areas where port-of-entry functions are being carried out (e.g. talking on a cellphone when standing in the passport control queue), but in Britain mobile phone usage in front of the passport control desks is forbidden, with signs posted to that effect.

The same goes for Ireland, but based on my recent visit it's utterly unenforced, unless the prohibition refers only to the telephone function of the device, or only to the period while actually dealing with agents. Certainly the vast majority of people in the immigration hall were engaged in usage of their mobile phones.

[Truvelo]

I can say with certainty in British airports I've witnessed people in immigration chatting on their phones whilst waiting to be served by passport control even though there's signs everywhere saying no phones or cameras. And regarding cameras there's often news reports that feature amateur video footage of long lines at immigration whenever there's been strikes or disruption.

[deathtopumpkins]

I was planning on being discreet about it anyway. I have a dash mount I keep my phone in, since I use it as a GPS and it makes it easier to get to if it rings, so I figured I'd leave it in there with the screen off. There's nothing to indicate that it is recording,  as it can do so in the background.

I don't know if I would try that in a secondary search or not though.

And JN, entering Canada we weren't even asked those questions you mentioned. Just the purpose of our visit, how long we'll be there, and whereabouts we're going. Under a minute.

[agentsteel53]

Reid interrogation--denounce the suspect to his face, putting him in the wrong and refusing to allow him to defend himself, before you move on to minimization and confession.

aka "let's be power-hungry assholes".  I've had that happen to me, and I absolutely hate it as a form of human interaction.

starting off an inquiry with "who are you here to pick up" just makes me want to say "your question is presumptuous; I am not here to pick up anyone.  also, the word you're looking for is 'whom'"... but fighting asshole with asshole would get me thrown in a jail.  therefore, the Reid is an abuse of power.

[J N Winkler]

starting off an inquiry with "who are you here to pick up" just makes me want to say "your question is presumptuous; I am not here to pick up anyone.  also, the word you're looking for is 'whom'"... but fighting asshole with asshole would get me thrown in a jail.  therefore, the Reid is an abuse of power.

As an interrogation technique it is designed to elicit a confession, not information, and in fact it has been shown to be quite effective at squeezing false confessions from the innocent (generally under duress so severe that they confess just to end the interrogation, either because being shouted at causes them to develop genuine doubts as to their innocence, or because they have a misplaced faith that additional investigation will show that their confessions cannot possibly be true and therefore exonerate them).  But it continues in use in the US because the bedrock doctrine--however false it may be--is still that no innocent person will confess to a crime.

I blame reliance on Reid interrogation for helping overstuff US prisons and feed the prison-industrial complex.  Many European countries either discourage the Reid technique or ban it outright, and still manage to have low rates of both crime and imprisonment.  Correlation does not prove causality, of course, and crime in the US is demonstrably driven by other factors in addition to police interrogation technique.  Even so, Reid's proven track record in eliciting false confessions from the innocent is a strong argument in favor of reducing reliance on it in favor of more effective (and arguably more efficient) investigatory procedures.

Anyway, this is mostly off-topic for this thread.  For a person being subjected to a hostile interrogation, the immediate problem is to break the Reid playbook.  A key rule is not to allow the suspect to maintain his innocence verbally, so I would suggest just saying, "I disclaim responsibility for any wrongdoing," talking over the officer's voice if you have to, and repeating this as a broken record, never directly answering any follow-up questions such as the obvious ones:  "What wrongdoing?"  "Why would we suspect you of wrongdoing today?"  If the officer shouts, I suggest dropping your voice almost to a whisper, so he has to stop shouting if he wants to understand what you are saying.  These responses ensure that any verbal compliance techniques the officers try will not find any purchase, and thus make it more likely that the case will be escalated to someone who is more likely to decide that the interrogation is not worth pursuing.

These are extreme responses, however, so I suggest keeping them up your sleeve until they are really needed.  I wouldn't wheel them out for the situation DTP describes, frankly.  Yes, it is offensive for a border officer to characterize your travel plans as "stupid," but outside the context of a line of questioning that evinces suspicion of specific criminal conduct, it is gratuitous.  There is no answer that can be given to such a thing that contributes toward the goal of crossing the border with minimum hassle.  It is much better to mokusatsu it, which is what I assume DTP did.

[agentsteel53]

"Why would we suspect you of wrongdoing today?"

I would definitely have a hard time not coming up with an utter-asshole response to this one.  "I cannot tell you why.  standard interrogation procedure involves you telling me, in fact.  so, let's go, let's hear it."

[J N Winkler]

I was planning on being discreet about it anyway. I have a dash mount I keep my phone in, since I use it as a GPS and it makes it easier to get to if it rings, so I figured I'd leave it in there with the screen off. There's nothing to indicate that it is recording,  as it can do so in the background.

There is an old Holocaust survivor's rule:  make sure you are thinking two or three steps ahead of the people who want to do you in.

To that end, I can think of at least one scenario I would want to have covered before I attempted covert recording in the manner you outline.  What if the Customs officer points to the cellphone sitting in the windshield mount and asks, "Is that recording?"  If you say No, then what do you do if he says, "Hand it over, please, so that I can examine it"?  If you say Yes, do you have a convincing explanation ready for why you are recording the procedure?  Etc.

[corco]

Right, and even if they don't know you're recording and then you get selected for secondary for entirely other reasons, there's a good chance they'll find out that you're covertly recording during the secondary inspection and what would have been just a quick lookover in your car could become something a lot more significant.

[agentsteel53]

is "do not record the police" an international universal, or is it just US overreaction to who-knows-what?  it seems to be an abuse of power.

[Brandon]

is "do not record the police" an international universal, or is it just US overreaction to who-knows-what?  it seems to be an abuse of power.

Even though it is a law on the books in Illinois, it has been deemed unconstitutional.  Thus, it is an abuse of power.

[realjd]

is "do not record the police" an international universal, or is it just US overreaction to who-knows-what?  it seems to be an abuse of power.

Even though it is a law on the books in Illinois, it has been deemed unconstitutional.  Thus, it is an abuse of power.

But NOT when entering the country. It's very well established by the courts that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply at the border. CBP can do what they like if you're trying to enter the country. Pretty much the only right a US citizen has at the border is the right to enter. CBP cannot block entry for a US Citizen but they can make it a very painful process, no probable cause needed.

What's more obnoxious is that the the courts also ruled that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to immigration enforcement within 100 or so miles of the border, thus the immigration roadblocks on I5, I8, I15, and other highways near the border that the USBP run.

[agentsteel53]

What's more obnoxious is that the the courts also ruled that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to immigration enforcement within 100 or so miles of the border, thus the immigration roadblocks on I5, I8, I15, and other highways near the border that the USBP run.

explain what warp in the space-time continuum puts I-40 at Needles within 100 miles of the border.

[realjd]

What's more obnoxious is that the the courts also ruled that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to immigration enforcement within 100 or so miles of the border, thus the immigration roadblocks on I5, I8, I15, and other highways near the border that the USBP run.

explain what warp in the space-time continuum puts I-40 at Needles within 100 miles of the border.

Blue stripe car CBP or green stripe car USBP? What were they doing there?

[agentsteel53]

Blue stripe car CBP or green stripe car USBP? What were they doing there?

green.  what's the difference?

they were pulling people over who were coming out of the aggie station on I-40 westbound.

[realjd]

Blue stripe car CBP or green stripe car USBP? What were they doing there?

green.  what's the difference?

they were pulling people over who were coming out of the aggie station on I-40 westbound.

CBP is Customs and Border Protection. They're the folks you encounter entering the country at ports of entry, whether at the physical border or at the airport. USBP is the United States Border Patrol and is in charge of patrolling the border away from ports of entry. They're the ones driving the fence with Mexico, manning the inland checkpoints, and driving around the Keys. You also see USBP watching traffic at the Florida ag checkpoints.

I was asking because its not unusual to see CBP inland because they work airport immigration. But if the USBP is pulling people over that far inland, I have no explanation.

EDIT: the simple version is CBP works ports of entry. USBP works the border between ports of entry, and ICE (who I didn't mention) enforce immigration laws inland and aren't uniformed from what I understand.

[agentsteel53]

EDIT: the simple version is CBP works ports of entry. USBP works the border between ports of entry, and ICE (who I didn't mention) enforce immigration laws inland and aren't uniformed from what I understand.

this is all well and good, but ... Needles.  if Needles is on the border, I'm Elbridge Gerry.

[J N Winkler]

I was asking because its not unusual to see CBP inland because they work airport immigration. But if the USBP is pulling people over that far inland, I have no explanation.

I think Jake has mentioned this before, in the context of a earlier discussion about Border Patrol checkpoints.  Most of these checkpoints are operated under a legal doctrine that allows suspicionless checkpoints within 100 miles of the border.  In the story Jake tells, however, the Border Patrol is surveilling traffic going through a California agricultural inspection checkpoint and allowing the agricultural inspectors to develop the suspicion for them.  If evidence transpires in the course of an inspection that leads a reasonable person to suspect that a given vehicle is carrying undocumented aliens, then the Border Patrol can stop and detain that vehicle, since the 100-mile limit does not apply to searches that begin with reasonable suspicion.

[Duke87]

I'll see you that and raise you... what is the constitutionality of subjecting passenger cars to "agricultural" inspections in the first place?

On both of my encounters with the Californian Customs Agents I have simply been waved through without a word, which makes entering California the most pleasant border crossing experience I have ever had.

[agentsteel53]

On both of my encounters with the Californian Customs Agents I have simply been waved through without a word, which makes entering California the most pleasant border crossing experience I have ever had.

I'd still put that behind every other border where they, you know, don't do anything at all?

the most pleasant border crossing I experience is ... oh, say Arizona to Utah on US-89A.  just as an example.

[agentsteel53]

I think Jake has mentioned this before, in the context of a earlier discussion about Border Patrol checkpoints.  Most of these checkpoints are operated under a legal doctrine that allows suspicionless checkpoints within 100 miles of the border.  In the story Jake tells, however, the Border Patrol is surveilling traffic going through a California agricultural inspection checkpoint and allowing the agricultural inspectors to develop the suspicion for them.  If evidence transpires in the course of an inspection that leads a reasonable person to suspect that a given vehicle is carrying undocumented aliens, then the Border Patrol can stop and detain that vehicle, since the 100-mile limit does not apply to searches that begin with reasonable suspicion.

how the fuck is that legal?  the aggies should be strictly looking for agricultural goods.

if an aggie spots an illegal alien snorting coke off a hooker's ass in the back of my pervert van filled with human slaves who are knifing each other for the glory of Satan... I don't think they should have any right to do anything but look me in the eye and say "no vegetables?  carry on, sir."