Entering/Leaving the US (and other countries)

[Rothman]

Anyway, not even being able to stop or question anybody leaving the country doesn't seem like the kind of thing the border patrol would like.

The older I get, the more Soviet Union's practices that were heavily criticized in the 1980s are now heavily advocated for domestically...

[kphoger]

The older I get, the more Soviet Union's practices that were heavily criticized in the 1980s are now heavily advocated for domestically...

Where do the Mexican drug cartels get their guns?  Upwards of 70% of them come from the USA.  So yeah, I'm happy to let CBP check my vehicle for weapons when I drive down there.

[Molandfreak]

The older I get, the more Soviet Union's practices that were heavily criticized in the 1980s are now heavily advocated for domestically...

Where do the Mexican drug cartels get their guns?  Upwards of 70% of them come from the USA.  So yeah, I'm happy to let CBP check my vehicle for weapons when I drive down there.

Isn't it La Presidenta Sheinbaum's problem if the INM isn't properly enforcing weapons importation laws in Mexico?

[Rothman]

The older I get, the more Soviet Union's practices that were heavily criticized in the 1980s are now heavily advocated for domestically...

Where do the Mexican drug cartels get their guns?  Upwards of 70% of them come from the USA.  So yeah, I'm happy to let CBP check my vehicle for weapons when I drive down there.

Yep, we should count on the Mexicans to stop illegal activity moving north, too.  Then, we could get rid of CBP altogether. ;D

[Max Rockatansky]

The older I get, the more Soviet Union's practices that were heavily criticized in the 1980s are now heavily advocated for domestically...

Where do the Mexican drug cartels get their guns?  Upwards of 70% of them come from the USA.  So yeah, I'm happy to let CBP check my vehicle for weapons when I drive down there.

Yep, we should count on the Mexicans to stop illegal activity moving north, too.  Then, we could get rid of CBP altogether. ;D

I don't know how much confidence I have in the tactical ability of the Mexican National Guard after the events that transpired in Jalisco this past February.  The Jalisco New Generation Cartel was closer of a match in terms of firepower and manpower than probably should have been.

[kphoger]

Isn't it La Presidenta Sheinbaum's problem if the INM isn't properly enforcing weapons importation laws in Mexico?

If people are smuggling US weapons and US currency (etc) out of the USA to arm and fund international criminal organizations, then the US government might like to try and stop that.  If fugitives are fleeing the USA for a foreign country to avoid being punished for their crimes, then the US government might like to try and stop that.  How is this hard to understand?

We've also been stopped while driving northbound toward the US border so Mexican soldiers could search for drugs.  I think it was 2011 or 2012, and our family's vehicle was waved through, but our group's other vehicle was pulled over, everyone had to get out, and the soldiers got out every single piece of luggage and searched through them.  You might ask, isn't it the US president's problem if the CBP isn't stopping fentanyl smugglers?—but, you know, the Mexican government might like to try and stop the criminal activity too, before it ever reaches the border.

Obviously, it isn't worth the effort to search every vehicle at every crossing, all day, every day.  But, based on current events and intel, it might be worth it to do increased searches here or there, now and then.  To me, this makes total sense, and I'm amazed it doesn't make sense to everyone else.

I don't know how much confidence I have in the tactical ability of the Mexican National Guard after the events that transpired in Jalisco this past February.  The Jalisco New Generation Cartel was closer of a match in terms of firepower and manpower than probably should have been.

The cartels love their (smuggled out of the USA) 50-caliber rifles.  While the Mexican government has more weapons, and bigger, it's a matter of getting them to where they need to be when they need to be there.  The cartels don't exactly give them a heads-up.

[Molandfreak]

Isn't it La Presidenta Sheinbaum's problem if the INM isn't properly enforcing weapons importation laws in Mexico?

If people are smuggling US weapons and US currency (etc) out of the USA to arm and fund international criminal organizations, then the US government might like to try and stop that.  If fugitives are fleeing the USA for a foreign country to avoid being punished for their crimes, then the US government might like to try and stop that.  How is this hard to understand?

We've also been stopped while driving northbound toward the US border so Mexican soldiers could search for drugs.  I think it was 2011 or 2012, and our family's vehicle was waved through, but our group's other vehicle was pulled over, everyone had to get out, and the soldiers got out every single piece of luggage and searched through them.  You might ask, isn't it the US president's problem if the CBP isn't stopping fentanyl smugglers?—but, you know, the Mexican government might like to try and stop the criminal activity too, before it ever reaches the border.

Obviously, it isn't worth the effort to search every vehicle at every crossing, all day, every day.  But, based on current events and intel, it might be worth it to do increased searches here or there, now and then.  To me, this makes total sense, and I'm amazed it doesn't make sense to everyone else.

I don't know, it's just that we have the luxury of never having to deal with exit customs unlike the majority of external borders in Europe and Asia, and I would rather have that continue to be the case than introduce a new status quo. It's like the only thing the WHTI hasn't screwed up.

[Max Rockatansky]

Isn't it La Presidenta Sheinbaum's problem if the INM isn't properly enforcing weapons importation laws in Mexico?

If people are smuggling US weapons and US currency (etc) out of the USA to arm and fund international criminal organizations, then the US government might like to try and stop that.  If fugitives are fleeing the USA for a foreign country to avoid being punished for their crimes, then the US government might like to try and stop that.  How is this hard to understand?

We've also been stopped while driving northbound toward the US border so Mexican soldiers could search for drugs.  I think it was 2011 or 2012, and our family's vehicle was waved through, but our group's other vehicle was pulled over, everyone had to get out, and the soldiers got out every single piece of luggage and searched through them.  You might ask, isn't it the US president's problem if the CBP isn't stopping fentanyl smugglers?—but, you know, the Mexican government might like to try and stop the criminal activity too, before it ever reaches the border.

Obviously, it isn't worth the effort to search every vehicle at every crossing, all day, every day.  But, based on current events and intel, it might be worth it to do increased searches here or there, now and then.  To me, this makes total sense, and I'm amazed it doesn't make sense to everyone else.

I don't know how much confidence I have in the tactical ability of the Mexican National Guard after the events that transpired in Jalisco this past February.  The Jalisco New Generation Cartel was closer of a match in terms of firepower and manpower than probably should have been.

The cartels love their (smuggled out of the USA) 50-caliber rifles.  While the Mexican government has more weapons, and bigger, it's a matter of getting them to where they need to be when they need to be there.  The cartels don't exactly give them a heads-up.

The thing that got me back in February was the lack of coordination between the National Guard and any stake holder in Jalisco state.  The state was completely unaware when the National Guard stormed that resort up in Tapalpa where El Mencho was hiding.  By the time anyone in the Jalisco government was informed it was already too late.  The cartels had been burning vehicles and blocking highways for hours.

I do wonder though, could the National Guard have actually trustee Jalisco officials?  I was left the impression that there was concern that the Jalisco state government might leaked information to the cartel about the raid in Tapalpa. 

I don't know if I mentioned it when this cartel stuff happened but my wife and I were going to drive to Tapalpa the day of the raid.  Had we actually gotten up when we planned there was a good chance that we would have run into the cartel members actively burning vehicles.  We ended up getting out of the house late and having breakfast along the railroad tracks. 

[Rothman]

To me, this makes total sense, and I'm amazed it doesn't make sense to everyone else.

Probably because countries insist on that whole sovereignty thing where they're responsible for their own security, hence the entrance stations.

[vdeane]

I do think there's a bit of a difference between the Mexican border, where Mexico famously doesn't even bother to check most people entering (with vehicles that get the green light allowed straight in without talking to any border guard or having any document check) and the Canadian border, where both sides do at least primary inspection of all traffic, and have information sharing so that an entry to Canada is also recorded as an exit from the US (and vice-versa).  That said, I don't think I'll ever stop associating exit checks with countries like East Germany.

[Rothman]

I do think there's a bit of a difference between the Mexican border, where Mexico famously doesn't even bother to check most people entering (with vehicles that get the green light allowed straight in without talking to any border guard or having any document check) and the Canadian border, where both sides do at least primary inspection of all traffic, and have information sharing so that an entry to Canada is also recorded as an exit from the US (and vice-versa).  That said, I don't think I'll ever stop associating exit checks with countries like East Germany.

Right.  Ny first experience with an exit check was coming out of Russia in 1995.

[LilianaUwU]

Obligatory "why are y'all okay with this?"

[Max Rockatansky]

Obligatory "why are y'all okay with this?"

My surface acceptance that there are just some things in the world which I can't do anything about shouldn't equated as me being "okay with them."

[Molandfreak]

Obligatory "why are y'all okay with this?"

My surface acceptance that there are just some things in the world which I can't do anything about shouldn't equated as me being "okay with them."

There is always something you can do.

[Max Rockatansky]

Obligatory "why are y'all okay with this?"

My surface acceptance that there are just some things in the world which I can't do anything about shouldn't equated as me being "okay with them."

There is always something you can do.

It also isn't a large enough problem in my life that I'm even motivated to openly complain about it online.  I might drive across a border every couple years and I've always flown into Jalisco.  If my wife and I do end up driving to Mexicali in July it will be the first overland trip I've done to Mexico since I lived in Arizona.

[kalvado]

Anyway, not even being able to stop or question anybody leaving the country doesn't seem like the kind of thing the border patrol would like.

The older I get, the more Soviet Union's practices that w ere heavily criticized in the 1980s are now heavily advocated for domestically...

But if there's a law about it at all, though who ever heard of a law that a man shouldn't kill deer where he pleased!—but if there is a law at all, it should be to keep people from the use of smooth-bores.

NYS government:
!!!!!!

[kphoger]

I don't know, it's just that we have the luxury of never having to deal with exit customs unlike the majority of external borders in Europe and Asia, and I would rather have that continue to be the case than introduce a new status quo.

New status quo?  The legal mechanism for doing so has been on the books for about a century at this point, and I started seeing CBP agents at the southern border 15 years ago.  A quick Google search shows me online articles from both two years ago and three years ago talking about CBP checking northbound traffic exiting to Canada.

Also, clear back in 1996, Congress mandated the implementation of an automated system to collect and cross-check the identity of every non-citizen departing the country:

"Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop an automated entry and exit control system that will collect a record of departure for every alien departing the United States and match the records of departure with the record of the alien's arrival in the United States [Pub. L. 104–208, Title I, Subtitle A, §110(a)(1)]."

Now, the Attorney General has failed pretty miserably to comply with that directive, but it was issued three decades ago.  And might I suggest that one key component in developing such a system might be the ability to first determine if the people in a given exiting vehicle are actually US citizens or not—and therefore the ability to stop that vehicle before exit in order to make such a determination.  It would be easier to implement in somewhere like an airport, utilizing cameras and facial recognition, but that's not really practicable at land ports of entry.

countries insist on that whole sovereignty thing where they're responsible for their own security, hence the entrance stations.

But import laws are not the only ones that exist:  there are also export laws.  And it's also a matter of US security if there are people engaged in human trafficking, smuggling other people out of the country.

I do think there's a bit of a difference between the Mexican border, where Mexico famously doesn't even bother to check most people entering (with vehicles that get the green light allowed straight in without talking to any border guard or having any document check) ...

Not quite.  I've gotten a green light and still been waved over for inspection by an actual guard.  I've also gotten a red light and still been waved ahead to bypass inspection by an actual guard.  Last time I drove down, about four years ago or so, a lady was checking every vehicle on the Mexican side, asking questions of every driver, and I was instructed park in the pre-checkpoint parking lot to do all our paperwork before proceeding (in the past, I used to go through the checkpoint and then voluntarily park in the lot further south to go in and do paperwork).

... and the Canadian border, where both sides do at least primary inspection of all traffic, and have information sharing so that an entry to Canada is also recorded as an exit from the US (and vice-versa).

It's been quite a while since I've driven into Canada—not since the early 2000s.  Back then, there was nobody at all on the US side of the Ambassador Bridge, and the guy on the Canadian side just asked us "where are you headed?" and then "have a good time" when we told him "Rondeau Park".  On the way back into the USA, there was nobody on the Canadian side, but our passports were checked on the US side and we were questioned about how we knew each other.

Are you saying that every vehicle gets "primary inspection" or something like that?  And, if so, then why are you OK with that but not something more thorough?

Obligatory "why are y'all okay with this?"

Because, in my case driving south into Mexico, if CBP is searching my vehicle, then it's in an effort to prevent people from smuggling money and guns and stuff to supply the drug cartels.  Why would I not be OK with that?

[kalvado]

I don't know, it's just that we have the luxury of never having to deal with exit customs unlike the majority of external borders in Europe and Asia, and I would rather have that continue to be the case than introduce a new status quo.

New status quo?  The legal mechanism for doing so has been on the books for about a century at this point, and I started seeing CBP agents at the southern border 15 years ago.  A quick Google search shows me online articles from both two years ago and three years ago talking about CBP checking northbound traffic exiting to Canada.

Also, clear back in 1996, Congress mandated the implementation of an automated system to collect and cross-check the identity of every non-citizen departing the country:

"Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop an automated entry and exit control system that will collect a record of departure for every alien departing the United States and match the records of departure with the record of the alien's arrival in the United States [Pub. L. 104–208, Title I, Subtitle A, §110(a)(1)]."

Now, the Attorney General has failed pretty miserably to comply with that directive, but it was issued three decades ago.  And might I suggest that one key component in developing such a system might be the ability to first determine if the people in a given exiting vehicle are actually US citizens or not—and therefore the ability to stop that vehicle before exit in order to make such a determination.  It would be easier to implement in somewhere like an airport, utilizing cameras and facial recognition, but that's not really practicable at land ports of entry.

countries insist on that whole sovereignty thing where they're responsible for their own security, hence the entrance stations.

But import laws are not the only ones that exist:  there are also export laws.  And it's also a matter of US security if there are people engaged in human trafficking, smuggling other people out of the country.

I do think there's a bit of a difference between the Mexican border, where Mexico famously doesn't even bother to check most people entering (with vehicles that get the green light allowed straight in without talking to any border guard or having any document check) ...

Not quite.  I've gotten a green light and still been waved over for inspection by an actual guard.  I've also gotten a red light and still been waved ahead to bypass inspection by an actual guard.  Last time I drove down, about four years ago or so, a lady was checking every vehicle on the Mexican side, asking questions of every driver, and I was instructed park in the pre-checkpoint parking lot to do all our paperwork before proceeding (in the past, I used to go through the checkpoint and then voluntarily park in the lot further south to go in and do paperwork).

... and the Canadian border, where both sides do at least primary inspection of all traffic, and have information sharing so that an entry to Canada is also recorded as an exit from the US (and vice-versa).

It's been quite a while since I've driven into Canada—not since the early 2000s.  Back then, there was nobody at all on the US side of the Ambassador Bridge, and the guy on the Canadian side just asked us "where are you headed?" and then "have a good time" when we told him "Rondeau Park".  On the way back into the USA, there was nobody on the Canadian side, but our passports were checked on the US side and we were questioned about how we knew each other.

Are you saying that every vehicle gets "primary inspection" or something like that?  And, if so, then why are you OK with that but not something more thorough?

Obligatory "why are y'all okay with this?"

Because, in my case driving south into Mexico, if CBP is searching my vehicle, then it's in an effort to prevent people from smuggling money and guns and stuff to supply the drug cartels.  Why would I not be OK with that?

Just FYI

Article 13

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2.Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

[kphoger]

Just FYI

Article 13

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2.Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

None of that is hindered by an exit checkpoint.  Their prerogatives are to...

1.  Check to make sure you aren't exporting anything that's illegal to export,
2.  Check to make sure you aren't engaging in human trafficking or some such,
3.  Check to make sure you aren't a wanted fugitive,
4.  Check to see if you are a non-citizen and then record your exit if so.

I'm sure there are other prerogatives.  But none of that prohibits either (a) US citizens from leaving the USA, unless they are wanted criminals or otherwise not legally eligible for international travel, or (b) non-citizens from leaving the USA to return home.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I know because Japan has tax-free shopping rules for foreigners, sometimes they'll do exit checks on foreigners departing the country to ensure compliance.

[Molandfreak]

I don't know, it's just that we have the luxury of never having to deal with exit customs unlike the majority of external borders in Europe and Asia, and I would rather have that continue to be the case than introduce a new status quo.

New status quo?  The legal mechanism for doing so has been on the books for about a century at this point, and I started seeing CBP agents at the southern border 15 years ago.  A quick Google search shows me online articles from both two years ago and three years ago talking about CBP checking northbound traffic exiting to Canada.

Key word bolded. Try international treaties and cooperation for these issues that aren't happening here.

Whatever legal mechanisms exist certainly didn't reflect what was happening in the real world until very recently. If there is a problem with how the INM enforces Mexican weapons importation laws, the federal government of Mexico needs to deal with it and request aid if necessary. It is also reasonable for us to request reciprocal information sharing from border crossings.

Actually, requesting aid may be the ideal solution for this situation since the Guatemalan border can also be modernized and Mexico's visa regime for Guatemalans would be easier to enforce.

[kalvado]

Just FYI

Article 13

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2.Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

None of that is hindered by an exit checkpoint.  Their prerogatives are to...

1.  Check to make sure you aren't exporting anything that's illegal to export,
2.  Check to make sure you aren't engaging in human trafficking or some such,
3.  Check to make sure you aren't a wanted fugitive,
4.  Check to see if you are a non-citizen and then record your exit if so.

I'm sure there are other prerogatives.  But none of that prohibits either (a) US citizens from leaving the USA, unless they are wanted criminals or otherwise not legally eligible for international travel, or (b) non-citizens from leaving the USA to return home.

It 100% depends on what is the purpose and target of current propaganda effort. As in glass being mostly empty (just 95% content present)

[Scott5114]

Because, in my case driving south into Mexico, if CBP is searching my vehicle, then it's in an effort to prevent people from smuggling money and guns and stuff to supply the drug cartels.  Why would I not be OK with that?

I wouldn't be OK with that if I didn't trust the US government enough to believe their stated reason for doing something always matched up with their actual reason for doing something.

[vdeane]

It's been quite a while since I've driven into Canada—not since the early 2000s.  Back then, there was nobody at all on the US side of the Ambassador Bridge, and the guy on the Canadian side just asked us "where are you headed?" and then "have a good time" when we told him "Rondeau Park".  On the way back into the USA, there was nobody on the Canadian side, but our passports were checked on the US side and we were questioned about how we knew each other.

Are you saying that every vehicle gets "primary inspection" or something like that?  And, if so, then why are you OK with that but not something more thorough?

In terms of who's questioning which direction, that's pretty much how it's been since.  The big change with 9/11 was that everyone got a lot more questioning, not that they suddenly added additional checks that weren't there before.  These days, you can expect "where are you from", "where are you going", "purpose of trip", "how long you'll be there", "what are you bringing", questions relating to specific goods (firearms, cash over $10,000, etc. - usually at the end, and them being asked is generally a sign that you're nearly done about about to be allowed in), plus any number of follow-ups and additional questions they might feel the need to ask.  There's traditionally been no regular exit checks on the Canadian border because there's no need to do so to meet statutory requirements - CBP and CBSA have access to each other's information, so Canada logging your entry also serves as a log of you leaving the US, and since they log everyone (unlike Mexico, which as you've noted often waves people through if they have nothing to declare), that database is comprehensive.

Quite frankly, I wish we would go back to the pre-9/11 conditions (and the fact that we now offer the pre-9/11 treatment to people as a special program that you have to pay for and get a ton of background checks on is particularly annoying), but it seems like we'll never roll back anything that was done then in the name of "national security".  Having to potentially justify travel is one reason why my roadgeek clinches are much more sparse in Canada than in the US, despite the fact that Ontario and Québec both border NY.  I can't think of how to explain a purely roadgeeking trip to customs in a way that wouldn't have them find me suspicious just for how unusual things like clinching highways are.  Already I've had to explain the concept of roadmeets twice when crossing the border, and in great detail too - once to CBSA when I crossed over for an afternoon in college for what amounted to a mini-meet (to be fair, this was my first time crossing on my own and also having substantial interactions with customs at all - prior crossings all being in family/school groups where someone else did the talking - so I made several mistakes and can think of several answers where I didn't phrase something the best way or gave more information than was needed), and once to CBP where I passed through Canada on the way to the Michigan City roadmeet and got intensely grilled on my travel plans upon returning to the US, because they found the fact that I crossed the border into Michigan at all to be extremely suspicious.

I'm not really on board with the idea that you have to ask for permission from the government to leave.

Just FYI

Article 13

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2.Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

None of that is hindered by an exit checkpoint.  Their prerogatives are to...

1.  Check to make sure you aren't exporting anything that's illegal to export,
2.  Check to make sure you aren't engaging in human trafficking or some such,
3.  Check to make sure you aren't a wanted fugitive,
4.  Check to see if you are a non-citizen and then record your exit if so.

I'm sure there are other prerogatives.  But none of that prohibits either (a) US citizens from leaving the USA, unless they are wanted criminals or otherwise not legally eligible for international travel, or (b) non-citizens from leaving the USA to return home.

1. The idea that something would be illegal to export (barring specific situations related to classified materials or wartime rationing or something) seems strange.  I would think more along the lines of illegal to import into the bordering country, which would be CBSA's problem, not CBP's.
2. Doesn't CBSA do that when you enter Canada?
3. Doesn't CBSA do this too when entering Canada?  But this runs into the additional wrinkle that you have to trust the government to not abuse that power.  How many people trust both parties enough on that subject?  I know that I don't.
4. Our information sharing between CBP and CBSA already handles this.

[Max Rockatansky]

To be fair, trying to explain anything that goes on in this hobby to a border agent is likely to induce bewilderment.