harrasing some GC holders at POE

[aosing]

Where can I read up on this? A friend of mine (legal resident) was questioned at a port of entry and the officers were "considering whether to admit him in or not", as he said. He's of Pakistani descent, and he always gets harassed coming into the US. Now that I read a similar story here, I would like to know if it's really up to the passport control officers whether to admit legal residents or not. If this is left to their discretion, there is no difference between a tourist visa and permanent residency.

Don't be facetious. A tourist visa has an expiration date within days or a few months at most and does not permit you to work or study in the United States. A green card has no expiration date and lets you do almost anything in the United States that a citizen can do. Being a permanent resident also gives you a chance to become a citizen within a few years, whereas you can't have any intention to remain in the USA if you want a tourist visa.

It is true that immigration has almost as much discretion with permanent residents as tourists,but that doesn't make the two statuses the same.

I'm sorry for your friend, but screening is not harassment and if he was merely questioned and admitted your friend has no grounds for complaint. There are legitimate, sensible, and easily understandable reasons to screen Pakistanis more thoroughly than Swedes, for instances. Your friend can apply for citizenship in a few years and then he will have the right to be treated the same as other Americans.

 

[Mr Vertigo]

Permanent residents can be refused entry into US for ANY reason or for no reason at all.
At borders you have NO rights.
You don't have a RIGHT to live in US - its an offer extended to you that can be taken back at any time.

This is simply not true.

 

[ptys]

You don't know what transpired in the instance I quoted involving my friend, you were not there, you never talked with the parties involved, so you're not in the position to comment, much less lecture me on it.

If I wanted to kid around, I wouldn't come to an immigration forum to search through it and ask questions. I did that because the return on the investment of time, effort, financial resources and strain on my family in order to attain my current immigration status diminished overnight after hearing my friends story. This, of course, is in regard to entering the US specifically, which is obvious after reading my post.

If you don't have anything to contribute relating to my post, as opposed to your personal feelings or ignorant racial suppositions, don't waste your breath.

Don't be facetious. A tourist visa has an expiration date within days or a few months at most and does not permit you to work or study in the United States. A green card has no expiration date and lets you do almost anything in the United States that a citizen can do. Being a permanent resident also gives you a chance to become a citizen within a few years, whereas you can't have any intention to remain in the USA if you want a tourist visa.

It is true that immigration has almost as much discretion with permanent residents as tourists,but that doesn't make the two statuses the same.

I'm sorry for your friend, but screening is not harassment and if he was merely questioned and admitted your friend has no grounds for complaint. There are legitimate, sensible, and easily understandable reasons to screen Pakistanis more thoroughly than Swedes, for instances. Your friend can apply for citizenship in a few years and then he will have the right to be treated the same as other Americans.

 

[Mr Vertigo]

Don't be facetious. A tourist visa has an expiration date within days or a few months at most

Visas can and do last up to 10 years. My niece has a 10 year visitor's visa even though she's only 1 and has no idea what a visa is.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

You don't know what transpired in the instance I quoted involving my friend, you were not there, you never talked with the parties involved, so you're not in the position to comment, much less lecture me on it.

There is a significant legal difference between seeking admission using a non-immigrant visa and returning with a Green Card after an absence of less than six months.

I don't doubt that your friend had a difficult time, but CBP has few legal powers beyond the ability to give him a hard time. There are actually very few grounds they can use to deny him entrance.

 

[aosing]

You don't know what transpired in the instance I quoted involving my friend, you were not there, you never talked with the parties involved, so you're not in the position to comment, much less lecture me on it.

If I wanted to kid around, I wouldn't come to an immigration forum to search through it and ask questions. I did that because the return on the investment of time, effort, financial resources and strain on my family in order to attain my current immigration status diminished overnight after hearing my friends story. This, of course, is in regard to entering the US specifically, which is obvious after reading my post.

If you don't have anything to contribute relating to my post, as opposed to your personal feelings or ignorant racial suppositions, don't waste your breath.

Ptys, I never mentioned race, and I think I did contribute something to your post, namely that equating a GC and tourist visa is completely false, and that you have an incorrect view of what GC status means. Many Supreme Court cases have ruled that it is an inherent power of the United States, as a sovereign nation, to exclude or expel aliens, and that the exercise of this power is not even subject to judicial review except to the extent Congress allows.

Furthermore, I wasn't there, but you described the incidents with your friends as "questioning" and nothing more, with no threats made other than the possibility of exclusion, which is within CBP's rights. And although it rarely exercises this against permanent residents, CBP does have the power to exclude noncitizens on more grounds than TheRealCanadian mentions, the most important one being "national security," the reasons for which do not need to be disclosed.

ptys, I have lived much of my life as an alien in nations where there was no such thing as permanent residency and where naturalization was not possible for persons of my race, so you don't need to lecture me about racial superstitions. As a foreigner I might be annoyed or upset about being interrogated on entering India or Pakistan, but I would not complain that they had no right to do so.

If you have a green card, you have a path to citizenship and an indefinite license to remain in the United States. That's not something a tourist has, it's something that thousands of people are lined up for. It is not worthless, it is extremely valuable, but it is not, as you seem to think it should be, an irrevocable right to breeze in and out of the country without explanation.

 

[ptys]

There is a significant legal difference between seeking admission using a non-immigrant visa and returning with a Green Card after an absence of less than six months.

I don't doubt that your friend had a difficult time, but CBP has few legal powers beyond the ability to give him a hard time. There are actually very few grounds they can use to deny him entrance.

Thanks. That's exactly what I'm trying to find out. Anecdotal evidence seems to point to the opposite, unless the officers either don't know of their powers, or overstate them in order to intimidate. I searched USCIS and Dept of State sites, and I don't get anything regarding point of entry and permanent residents' rights there.

 

[ptys]

Sorry, you're insulting my intelligence or my ability to read English.

You stated, not implied, in your post it's understandable to screen people because they are of Pakistani descent, as opposed to Caucasian. Then you proceeded to defend it. That's ignorant and racist. It's racist because it paints all "brown" people with the same brush. It's ignorant because the asserted "legitimacy" and "understandable reasons" are not based on facts or statistics, but racial prejudice and stereotype. How many recent terrorist attacks, attempts of, or murders on US soil were carried out by Pakistanis?

Now you are stating you did not say what you did in the post above. That goes to my first point.

The rest of the post was devoted to the warm feeling which US residency gives you, which I gathered from your glorification of the green card and its benefits, your defense of racial profiling by US immigration officers, and ignoring of the question I posed.

Ptys, I never mentioned race, and I think I did contribute something to your post, namely that equating a GC and tourist visa is completely false, and that you have an incorrect view of what GC status means. Many Supreme Court cases have ruled that it is an inherent power of the United States, as a sovereign nation, to exclude or expel aliens, and that the exercise of this power is not even subject to judicial review except to the extent Congress allows.

Furthermore, I wasn't there, but you described the incidents with your friends as "questioning" and nothing more, with no threats made other than the possibility of exclusion, which is within CBP's rights. And although it rarely exercises this against permanent residents, CBP does have the power to exclude noncitizens on more grounds than TheRealCanadian mentions, the most important one being "national security," the reasons for which do not need to be disclosed.

ptys, I have lived much of my life as an alien in nations where there was no such thing as permanent residency and where naturalization was not possible for persons of my race, so you don't need to lecture me about racial superstitions. As a foreigner I might be annoyed or upset about being interrogated on entering India or Pakistan, but I would not complain that they had no right to do so.

If you have a green card, you have a path to citizenship and an indefinite license to remain in the United States. That's not something a tourist has, it's something that thousands of people are lined up for. It is not worthless, it is extremely valuable, but it is not, as you seem to think it should be, an irrevocable right to breeze in and out of the country without explanation.

 

[aosing]

Thanks. That's exeactly what I'm trying to find out. Anecdotal evidence seems to point to the opposite, unless the officers either don't know of their powers, or overstate them in order to intimidate. I searched USCIS and Dept of State sites, and I don't get anything regarding point of entry and permanent residents' rights there.

It is also not really true. Border agents have the authority to question you, search your effects, seize contraband, and determine whether to grant or deny you entry into the United States on the basis of your documents AND their entire inspection. If an alien is suspicious and uncooperative and the CBP determines that he is up to no good, they can deny entry regardless of immigration status. This determination can be challenged administratively, and an excluded alien can always try to enter again, but at the end of the day it is discretionary of the executive agencies to regulate entry.

In practice CBP is not going to exclude a permanent resident unless they have a firm, articulable reason that arises in their inspection, since the background of every PR has already been investigated in the past. But the fact that they can keep people out is not bluster, and those who want in would be advised not to antagonize inspectors or give them excuses to exclude them.

*In reply to your second post, I didn't use the word Caucasian or mention race, you did. Believe it or not there are brown Swedes and white Pakistanis, and I perhaps unwisely compared Sweden for its 100 year history of nonalignment. Would you prefer to compare the Chechen Republic and Spain, Somalia and Kenya, or Pakistan and Bangladesh? You may not believe nationals of these pairs of countries should be treated differently at foreign borders, but they are everywhere, due to the instability and comparative levels of terrorist activities in their borders. You don't have to have something against brown people to recognize the fact that the Republic of Pakistan created the Taliban and now has been in a low-level civil war against it for some time, in which it has little control of Waziristan and ceded terroritory to Taliban rule, that there is significant terrorist activity, and that bin Laden, if still alive, is probably holed up in Pakistan, all of which mean that regardless of color, someone with a passport issued by Pakistan is going to get a closer screening at a border than someone of the same color from a stable nation. This is getting political and off-topic and I hate to say it, but since my character was brought into it I'm explaining it further.

I'm not denying that horrible racist behavior happens regularly in CBP offices and elsewhere, and I'm not justifying it, I'm just saying that CBP does in fact have large discretionary powers at the border and can and will discriminate in screening based on citizenship. If you want me to provide a string of Supreme Court citations that you probably have no interest in anyway, I could, but I am confident that if you really want to research this you can use the power of Google to find it yourself.

 

[Sephiroth]

It is also not really true. Border agents have the authority to question you, search your effects, seize contraband, and determine whether to grant or deny you entry into the United States on the basis of your documents AND their entire inspection. If an alien is suspicious and uncooperative and the CBP determines that he is up to no good, they can deny entry regardless of immigration status. This determination can be challenged administratively, and an excluded alien can always try to enter again, but at the end of the day it is discretionary of the executive agencies to regulate entry.

In practice CBP is not going to exclude a permanent resident unless they have a firm, articulable reason that arises in their inspection, since the background of every PR has already been investigated in the past. But the fact that they can keep people out is not bluster, and those who want in would be advised not to antagonize inspectors or give them excuses to exclude them.

*In reply to your second post, I didn't use the word Caucasian or mention race, you did. Believe it or not there are brown Swedes and white Pakistanis, and I perhaps unwisely compared Sweden for its 100 year history of nonalignment. Would you prefer to compare the Chechen Republic and Spain, Somalia and Kenya, or Pakistan and Bangladesh? You may not believe nationals of these pairs of countries should be treated differently at foreign borders, but they are everywhere, due to the instability and comparative levels of terrorist activities in their borders. You don't have to have something against brown people to recognize the fact that the Republic of Pakistan created the Taliban and now has been in a low-level civil war against it for some time, in which it has little control of Waziristan and ceded terroritory to Taliban rule, that there is significant terrorist activity, and that bin Laden, if still alive, is probably holed up in Pakistan, all of which mean that regardless of color, someone with a passport issued by Pakistan is going to get a closer screening at a border than someone of the same color from a stable nation. This is getting political and off-topic and I hate to say it, but since my character was brought into it I'm explaining it further.

I'm not denying that horrible racist behavior happens regularly in CBP offices and elsewhere, and I'm not justifying it, I'm just saying that CBP does in fact have large discretionary powers at the border and can and will discriminate in screening based on citizenship. If you want me to provide a string of Supreme Court citations that you probably have no interest in anyway, I could, but I am confident that if you really want to research this you can use the power of Google to find it yourself.

I agree with aosing comments, No racism involved , just right explanation.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

If you want me to provide a string of Supreme Court citations that you probably have no interest in anyway, I could, but I am confident that if you really want to research this you can use the power of Google to find it yourself.

I'd be interested, actually.

The Supreme Court stated in 1976 that the right of the Executive to control the borders is pretty much inviolate as a matter of ancient common law, not worthy of review. It's worth noting that you are still entitled to due process at the border, with the important proviso that due process is whatever Congress deems it to be. That guts most of it, but it still emphasizes the notion that entry at the border is controlled by US law, not the whims of the Executive alone.

Let's take my situation. I am a US permanent resident in possession of an unexpired I-551 card, returning to the US after an absence of less than six months. On what grounds can CBP deny me entry?

The cannot do so by the usual catchall in the INA, which is immigrant intent. Under the law, every alien seeking admission at the borer is presumed to be an immigrant until proven otherwise. Fortunately for me, since I have an unexpired GC and have been away for less than a year, under the law I have the equivalent of an immigrant visa and therefore cannot be denied admittance for this reason.

Additionally, since I am returning after an absence of less than six months, under the INA I not seeking admission. I could therefore be destitute and riddled with venereal diseases, and I cannot be denied entrance on the grounds of inadmissibility based on public charge or health reasons.

I suppose I could be denied admission based on national security reasons, but in the absence of my name in a database or a determination by someone far higher up the food chain than the average CBP inspector sitting in a booth, that's going to be very unlikely. Outside of a small POE, the average CBP agent doesn't have the authority to do much by themselves, they need the Port Director or Shift Supervisor to authorize anything significant.

What else is there?

This shouldn't suggest to anyone that CBP, like any law enforcement officers, can make your life very, very miserable should they choose to do so, and acting like a jerk is a good way to have that happen. Generally speaking, the best course of action is to be polite, business-like and cooperative. However, it also is useful to know your legal rights, and know when to make them aware of this fact.

 

[tnwalker]

to anyone that CBP, like any law enforcement officers, can make your life very, very miserable should they choose to do so, and acting like a jerk is a good way to have that happen. Generally speaking, the best course of action is to be polite, business-like and cooperative. However, it also is useful to know your legal rights, and know when to make them aware of this fact.

Very true. One must also realize they have the same power 100 mi from a border. They can and do exercise that right, especially at the southern border. They can stop your car and search it without the legal stuff that regular police have to deal with and basically have the same rights in that 100 mi zone as they do at POE.

I was stopped by them at a permanent checkpoint set up in a highway close to mexico. They had drug sniffing cars going over your car etc. I didn't realize I had to carry my greencard, so I didn't have it on me. One of them was making all kind of empty threats-he could take my greencard away etc. Now they did let me go -but legally I found out, they could have detained me, thrown me intot he illegal holding van and kept me in the holding cell till they find my identity. I was polite. They tried tripping me, I told them twice I was going to Tuscon, AZ-but the one rude guy kept saying Phoenix-maybe hoping for conflicting answers.

But that corridor is the major drug and illegal smuggling route and they had all of 2 min to figure out I was legit or not. The drug sniffing dog already told them I had no drugs so that left only my status.

I have lived/travelled all over and never faced this. But that made me apply for my citizenship. But now, I am actually thinking of moving back to LA-it just feels like a quasi military state and not the US. I understand why they are doing it-the last thing I wan't is the drug violence spilling over, -but still it just feels odd to be driving a freeway and stop at checkpoints and have drug sniffing dogs(apparantely they also have illegal sniffing dogs go over the auto too to sniff out humans hiddden in hidden compartments) and having to answer if you are a citizen or not-I am one now, but still.

But yes it depends on the officer-when I continued to Tuscon, I was in a road and I hit a temporary checkpoint. I said I was not a citizen and a greencard-the officer waved me through right on-didn't even ask a thing.

 

[aosing]

I'd be interested, actually.

The Supreme Court stated in 1976 that the right of the Executive to control the borders is pretty much inviolate as a matter of ancient common law, not worthy of review. It's worth noting that you are still entitled to due process at the border, with the important proviso that due process is whatever Congress deems it to be. That guts most of it, but it still emphasizes the notion that entry at the border is controlled by US law, not the whims of the Executive alone.

Congress enacts the law, the executive gets to put them into play and Congress has no role in that beyond the ability to monitor and pass subsequent legislation. Since as you stated this inviolate right is not subject to judicial review, due process in any individual case is preserved (if at all) by the executive alone. I won't give you an exhaustive string cite but you can start with Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) and let you go from there if you are really interested.

Let's take my situation. I am a US permanent resident in possession of an unexpired I-551 card, returning to the US after an absence of less than six months. On what grounds can CBP deny me entry?

...

I suppose I could be denied admission based on national security reasons, but in the absence of my name in a database or a determination by someone far higher up the food chain than the average CBP inspector sitting in a booth, that's going to be very unlikely. Outside of a small POE, the average CBP agent doesn't have the authority to do much by themselves, they need the Port Director or Shift Supervisor to authorize anything significant.

You are being dismissive of the most important and powerful cause that CBP has to exclude you. Of course such a decision wouldn't be unilaterally made by a border-guard peon, but in consultation with the chain of the command and likely with other departments of the executive. And of course you, who are not by any stretch of the imagination, an actual threat, are not going to be targeted by CBP for this type of enforcement. But it is a tool that the CBP absolutely does have, with little recourse, to tell someone "You can't come in and we're not telling you why, other than `undisclosed threats.'"

Although Americans are constantly killing each other and themselves for various reasons, terrorism is the threat that gets the most attention. It's that border-guard peon's butt that is on the line if someone he screens commits a terrorist act in America. National security is the single most important duty of a CBP agent, and they are not going to apologize for hurting someone's feelings because they asked too many questions. And even the peons not only have the power, but the obligation as part of their job description to investigate further and report any suspicions they may have regarding national security, before granting admission.

This shouldn't suggest to anyone that CBP, like any law enforcement officers, can make your life very, very miserable should they choose to do so, and acting like a jerk is a good way to have that happen. Generally speaking, the best course of action is to be polite, business-like and cooperative. However, it also is useful to know your legal rights, and know when to make them aware of this fact.

Also very true. Part of knowing your rights in this situation is that it will not help anyone to tell the CBP agent that he can't keep you out because you have a green card. However it is certainly within your rights to politely ask why you have been subjected to secondary screening or any other government action, whether or not you get a straight answer.

 

[Mr Vertigo]

But it is a tool that the CBP absolutely does have, with little recourse, to tell someone "You can't come in and we're not telling you why, other than `undisclosed threats.'"

Yet, you keep ignoring the fact that you can appeal that decision and will, more then likely, have it overturned. A GC is not equivalent to a visitor's visa. They can deny you entry if you have a visitor's visa and there's really no way for you to dispute or challenge that. With a GC, you have certain rights, and one of them is the right of appeal. The courts don't generally look kindly upon cases of permanent residents being denied entry without any reason whatsoever.

 

[new_LPR]

Although Americans are constantly killing each other and themselves for various reasons, terrorism is the threat that gets the most attention. It's that border-guard peon's butt that is on the line if someone he screens commits a terrorist act in America. National security is the single most important duty of a CBP agent, and they are not going to apologize for hurting someone's feelings because they asked too many questions. And even the peons not only have the power, but the obligation as part of their job description to investigate further and report any suspicions they may have regarding national security, before granting admission.

Probably they are told to keep terrorists out of the country, but the methods they use are completely BS.
In the name of terrorism they go too far many times.

Tell me, if I stay out of the country for 3 days, why do they have to first see if I am a bad guy? Shouldn't that responsibvility lie with the local police to monitor my actions since I LIVE in that city for 300+ days?

This is EXACTLY I mentioned in the begining of the thread - when LPRs cross the border, they are treated like foreigners trying to immigrate - and not residents who were out for a few days on vacation.


Their mindset then changes to - why is he trying to enter US. And so the endless barrage of questioning starts.

IF finding out the bad guys is their goal, they should stop me on way to work and ask me whom I visited in the last 7 days, what did I do yesterday etc.

Tell me if tackling terrorists is their goal, why would they threaten you to take your GC away if you had a banana in your trunk?
Or if you are 70 yrs old, they would fire barrage of questions to those old people to find some inconsistency???


In other words, why threaten people with GC at all? Does that make them better? Should they not quietly punish them ?

The issue I have is no so much of barrage of questions on my life since I was a kid or the secondary screenings sometimes, but ALL OF it goes into the record - they will write all the details and probably say that he is clear for entering - but the next time you enter, you will be asked why all the things in the record, so there they go again!!

 

[Jackolantern]

Tell me if tackling terrorists is their goal, why would they threaten you to take your GC away if you had a banana in your trunk?

Harassing you for carrying fruits into the country doesn't have anything to do with terrorism; they are trying to prevent foreign agricultural diseases from coming into the country and killing off the crops of domestic farmers. So if you are not a licensed importer bringing something from an approved source, you're likely to be given problems if you bring any raw unprocessed fruits or vegetables into the US.

 

[aosing]

Yet, you keep ignoring the fact that you can appeal that decision and will, more then likely, have it overturned. A GC is not equivalent to a visitor's visa. They can deny you entry if you have a visitor's visa and there's really no way for you to dispute or challenge that. With a GC, you have certain rights, and one of them is the right of appeal. The courts don't generally look kindly upon cases of permanent residents being denied entry without any reason whatsoever.

True if there is no reason whatsoever, and a LPR has the right under the INA to review exclusion through habeas corpus or declaratory judgment. There is even caselaw (e.g. Rafeedie) that indicates that the summary exclusion procedure, which is unappealable, may violate due process when applied to certain LPRs, meaning that the LPR is afforded due process of a plenary exclusion proceeding and the burden is on the government. That still leaves the government with the option to cite a "national security" risk which at most it might disclose ex parte, in camera to the tribunal. Of course many aliens would not have the resources to avail themselves of these protections and there is no right to free counsel in immigration proceedings.

But the issues raised in these threads are not what level of proof the government needs to actually deny entry. Nobody gave an actual example of an LPR being excluded (which is a rare event indeed). The only treatment complained of was questioning/secondary screening, and there is no question that border control has every right to do that. Heck, border control can subject a US CITIZEN to interrogation/secondary screening on reasonable cause, the difference being that a USC can't ultimately be denied entry, although they can be arrested and charged for trafficking/terrorism/etc.

 

[sehar]

I recently got the greencard. I used to do NSEER.
Couple of time after visting from canada by car I was sent inside for secondary inspection.

I talked to the supervisor and they feed something in computer to remove my name from secondary inspection - as I am GC holder now.

 

[Triple Citizen]

Secondary inspection is not only NSEER. GC holders, and even citizens can be sent to secondary inspection. NSEER does indeed take place at secondary inspection. This may give you the incorrect impression that both are the same entity.

I recently got the greencard. I used to do NSEER.
Couple of time after visting from canada by car I was sent inside for secondary inspection.

I talked to the supervisor and they feed something in computer to remove my name from secondary inspection - as I am GC holder now.

 

[thg12]

There is a significant legal difference between seeking admission using a non-immigrant visa and returning with a Green Card after an absence of less than six months.

I don't doubt that your friend had a difficult time, but CBP has few legal powers beyond the ability to give him a hard time. There are actually very few grounds they can use to deny him entrance.

I have a question based on a statement you made in this thread.

What exactly constitutes "admission"? For example if one has admitted to an offense that is not deportable but only renders the person inadmissible, does that mean the person should never leave the country for or does it mean that person should never leave for greater than 6 months? Of course assuming the person wants to continue residence in the US.

I have been given to understand that leaving for a day and returning is an "admission" or is it not?