Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Answering Customs Officials

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Answering Customs Officials

    This article about an American who refuses to answer questions about his business.
    reason.com/blog/2010/09/08/im-not-going-to-be-interrogate

    What do you all think about this? Is the law on his side?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It's not an interrogation. It's usually two or three questions. The answers really don't matter. They are trying to get a feel for the person who has just presented them with a document that may or may not be legit.

    It is a quick way for them to verify that you are who and what you claim to be. If you won't let them do it the easy way (and, the gentleman is right; he doesn't have to), they can do it the hard way.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It's not an interrogation. It's usually two or three questions. The answers really don't matter. They are trying to get a feel for the person who has just presented them with a document that may or may not be legit.

    It is a quick way for them to verify that you are who and what you claim to be. If you won't let them do it the easy way (and, the gentleman is right; he doesn't have to), they can do it the hard way.
    Guilty until proven innocent. The New American way.

  4. #4
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Guilty until proven innocent. The New American way.
    COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338


    Cooperate or it will be harder for you!!!!!! This mentality personally drives me nuts. How about prove your case before you harass someone, otherwise leave them the hell alone.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Cooperate or it will be harder for you!!!!!!
    Suggested reply, "I am cooperating to the full extent required by law. Is there a reason you are demanding extra-legal cooperation for which you have no authority?"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150
    Huh,...I always thought those questions were just genuine curiousity. If I was a bored customs official that never saw the outside of my cubicle all day, I'd be curious about where people have been and what they've seen lol.
    Unfortunatly this not likely to be solved anytime soon, customs officials at international airports are notorious for having a napoleon complex.

    On my flight back from Beijing, I was delayed for 3 hours and missed my connector flight at Chicago because of rather large and grumpy customs lady with an attitude to match insised that I be fully screened, full 2 bags, and back pack searched plus had to empty pockets. I showed them my military id and insisted that it was unneccessary to goto such extremes with a soldier's bags and they were wasting their time. She and some other guy in plain cloths just glared at me and said I had no buisness telling her how to do her job and that I was as suspect as anyone else. After I emptied pockets she was about insist my clothes be screened. At that point I asked to see the supervisor and informed her that I was not going to submit to any further searches and that she could go...you know what... When he arrived, I showed him my military ID and insisted that as an officer, I was not going to submit to a strip search just because ms. napoleon was having a bad day and they had no reason to believe I had commited any crime. My bags and pockets were clean and if they didn't allow me to continue, I was going to not only file a civil lawsuit, but I would also petition the DOD to investigate this mistreatment and his unit of operation. (had no idea whether that was possible, but it sure made them nervous lol ). He quickly helped me repack my luggage and apoligized several times for the inconveniance and explained he would deal with the matter personally. He even had someone go with me to the terminal to get me through TSA quickly and help explain to the airlines what happened and why I missed my flight. They got me on the next flight home with no additional fees or charges.

    So that was my one bad experiance with customs, but it was bad enough. Others trips have gone smoothly. They definately need to reform this assinine beurocracy.

    Sorry about the spelling errors, working off a computer abroad with no check.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by trooper46 View Post
    She and some other guy in plain cloths just glared at me and said I had no buisness telling her how to do her job and that I was as suspect as anyone else.
    At that point I would have sneered and said, "guilty till proven innocent, huh?"
    Last edited by Jack House; 09-12-2010 at 02:55 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    I had a really "nice" experience with customs at Baltimore in 1982. Came home after a 3 year tour in Germany, with 4 weapons in my bags because to ship them in household goods was unthinkable, would never see them again. Two customs officials came up and stated I didn't have the proper BATF paperwork to bring my guns back into the country. Since I had not purchased any of them overseas and had them listed on my orders when I left and returned I was not required any BATF paperwork, and I so stated. The one officer then stated that they would confiscate them and that I could get them back later. Since I was in uniform and had stripes down my arm and service chevrons that already said "this ain't no rookie" I said no sir, I think NOT. He said I should open my bags, I said, if I do that, in that bag right there is a 357 magnum, in the other is the ammunition for it. If you can kill me before I get it loaded you can have em. Then he said okay you may leave. I said not til I have your names and badge numbers so I can call my Congressman and report your harassment. Which I did. Never knew if they kept there jobs, but hope I made an impression on them not to mess with soldiers.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I think I see where the problem lies. Some are axiomatically thinking that one has a right to enter the country and bring anything in, unless a governmental official already has RAS that it would be unlawful for that person to enter or that he is bringing in something illegal.

    Under the law or The Constitution, no such right exists. One can believe in a theoretical natural right to cross borders at will and bring in anything he desires. Reality says that such a right does not exist. Personally, I would campaign against such a right being enshrined in the law or in The Constitution.

    So, this is not a Terry stop. They need no RAS. They already have the lawful authority to stop you and inspect you, your documents, and your possessions, to almost whatever extent they deem necessary.

    Once that nonexistent right is removed from the rhetorical mix, it is clear that customs and immigration officials have the duty to stop everyone entering the country and to take the measures necessary to ensure that people and goods that are barred from entry do not enter.

    The default position, then, is to scrutinize people, documents, and bags. Of course, that would mean that it takes everyone three hours to get through, once they get to the head of the line, days after they arrive.

    So, customs and immigration forgo these in-depth inspections. They rely on machines that read passports (and catch many, but not all, fakes), random thorough checks, a few questions, and their judgment about who is being forthright.

    When you resist this easy system, they, of course, fall back on the default, the three-hour check.

    If you refuse to answer their questions (which IS your right), not only do you thwart their people-reading skills, you raise the possibility that you are a bad guy, trying to hide something from them. You leave them no choice in how to do their lawful job.

    But, hey, go ahead and insist that you have your rights. Feel free to be righteously indignant. However, know that the customs and immigration officials will rightfully and lawfully do things the hard way.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Suggested reply, "I am cooperating to the full extent required by law. Is there a reason you are demanding extra-legal cooperation for which you have no authority?"
    I like that. I can see other situations I could use that.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The rational answer to that question would be, "Because I prefer to keep the hassle to the law-abiding public (and to me) to an absolute minimum. Asking a few questions to assess your compliance with the law helps me avoid the more complex and timely investigation that would be needed."

    Instead, though, you will likely get the exasperated (and understandable), "We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way."

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The rational answer to that question would be, "Because I prefer to keep the hassle to the law-abiding public (and to me) to an absolute minimum. Asking a few questions to assess your compliance with the law helps me avoid the more complex and timely investigation that would be needed."

    Instead, though, you will likely get the exasperated (and understandable), "We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way."
    Couldn't that answer also be used by a LEO asking to see your ID while he questioned about why you're wearing that gun in public?

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    No, because he needs RAS to take any action.

    Customs and immigration officials already have the authority to stop a person trying to enter the country, check his identity, check the lawfulness of his presence in this country, and inspect anything he is bringing into the country.

    When they don't, they are saving the entrant and themselves a lot of hassle. If answering a few questions convinces them of the honesty of my declarations and the validity of my passport, I'll answer them.

    If I assert my right not to answer those questions, I expect them to exercise their power to do the full check authorized by law. I always answer their questions. In the dozens of times I have reentered the US, I have had pleasant exchanges with the customs and immigration officers and zero hassles.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    RAS doesn't stop them from asking, and asking, and asking. They can ask for ID anytime they want. You just don't have to provide it.

    That's my point. How many recordings are there of OC'ers asking "am I being detained" and the response being "No we just need to verify your not a felon"(or some such).


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifv5qfuXmKQ

    Listen to this audio. Near the end the officer repeatedly states "I just need a name for my paperwork".

    If you aren't going to help out a LEO who is just making sure you're allowed to carry that gun in public(i.e. not a felon or on bond) why are you willing to help a Customs agent who is only asking about your private business abroad?
    In one instance you are willing to give up your privacy for expedience and not the other?

    Not an attack, just curious.
    Last edited by SavageOne; 09-12-2010 at 01:43 PM. Reason: added content

  16. #16
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    It's not an interrogation. It's usually two or three questions.
    If I'm being questioned by a government goon/representative/employee, and I'm not free to leave, it's an interrogation.
    First question to the goon: "Am I free to leave?"
    When they say no, you're in custody & your 5A rights kick in.

    The answers really don't matter.
    Then why ask the questions???
    What business is it of the government where I'm arriving from (which IIRC is on the customs form) or why I was there?
    If there's a specific problem, like say hoof-and-mouth disease, then they can tell me that & ask if I was on or near a farm. That's reasonable.

    ...person who has just presented them with a document that may or may not be legit. It is a quick way for them to verify that you are who and what you claim to be.
    They can verify that I'm who I say I am by looking at my passport. The new ones have several sorts of extra-special neato-keen spy stuff to show whether they're real. Nothing I say is more persuasive than the anti-counterfeiting measures already in place.

    They're allowed to xray my bag(s) - SCOTUS has said that's a nonintrusive search.
    But when they start ripping into it, they've crossed the line.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    RAS doesn't stop them from asking, and asking, and asking. They can ask for ID anytime they want. You just don't have to provide it.

    That's my point. How many recordings are there of OC'ers asking "am I being detained" and the response being "No we just need to verify your not a felon"(or some such).


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifv5qfuXmKQ

    Listen to this audio. Near the end the officer repeatedly states "I just need a name for my paperwork".

    If you aren't going to help out a LEO who is just making sure you're allowed to carry that gun in public(i.e. not a felon or on bond) why are you willing to help a Customs agent who is only asking about your private business abroad?
    In one instance you are willing to give up your privacy for expedience and not the other?

    Not an attack, just curious.
    No, they are enjoined by law (in Alabama, at least) from even stopping a person unless they have RAS of a crime. Customs and immigration are required to stop entrants, with or without RAS.

    That is THE difference, and why the reaction of LACs in the two situations should be wildly different.

    I will not cooperate with a LEO who unlawfully stops me (and didn't when I was unlawfully stopped). However, I have cooperated with every customs and immigration agent I have encountered when reentering the country.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    It's not an interrogation. It's usually two or three questions.
    If I'm being questioned by a government goon/representative/employee, and I'm not free to leave, it's an interrogation.
    First question to the goon: "Am I free to leave?"
    When they say no, you're in custody & your 5A rights kick in.

    The answers really don't matter.
    Then why ask the questions???
    What business is it of the government where I'm arriving from (which IIRC is on the customs form) or why I was there?
    If there's a specific problem, like say hoof-and-mouth disease, then they can tell me that & ask if I was on or near a farm. That's reasonable.

    ...person who has just presented them with a document that may or may not be legit. It is a quick way for them to verify that you are who and what you claim to be.
    They can verify that I'm who I say I am by looking at my passport. The new ones have several sorts of extra-special neato-keen spy stuff to show whether they're real. Nothing I say is more persuasive than the anti-counterfeiting measures already in place.

    They're allowed to xray my bag(s) - SCOTUS has said that's a nonintrusive search.
    But when they start ripping into it, they've crossed the line.
    You are not in custody. You are just being temporarily (and lawfully) being denied entry into the country while they figure out whether you and your stuff can lawfully be allowed in. They are not going to allow you to disrupt the process for the hundreds of people behind you in line. They will either get the answers to a few questions (the easy way) or do the full investigation that the law allows (the hard way).

    The answers really don't matter because they are judging your manner. They are allowing time for the agent to assess your behavior, and consequently, your credibility. Refusing to answer doesn't build credibility.

    You don't have to answer the questions. I recommend answering the questions.

  19. #19
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    This is going to get a bit long, but there are lots of legal cites to show.
    All but one of these quotes & citations are taken from:
    Protecting the US Perimeter: Border Searches Under the 4th Amendment
    Congressional Research Service
    Yule Kim, 29JUN09


    Some are axiomatically thinking that one has a right to enter the country

    "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." U.S. v. Valentine, 288 F. Supp. 957, 980 (D.P.R. 1968).
    (This is the one quote & citation that is not from that paper.)


    [thinking that] unless a governmental official already has RAS that it would be unlawful for that person to enter or that he is bringing in something illegal.

    Once a search of a person’s body goes beyond a limited intrusion, a court may determine that a non-routine search has occurred. Non-routine border searches may include prolonged detentions, strip searches, body cavity searches, and some X-ray examinations. [United States v. Adekunle, 2 F.3d 559, 562 (5th Cir. 1993) et al]

    ...courts require a government official to have a "reasonable suspicion” of illegal activity to conduct a non-routine border search. [Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. at 541; United States v. Garcia-Garcia, 319 F.3d 726, 730 (5th Cir. 2003)]


    If you refuse to answer their questions (which IS your right), not only do you thwart their people-reading skills, you raise the possibility that you are a bad guy, trying to hide something from them.

    "...an officer cannot construe a person’s refusal to be interviewed as sufficient cause to suspect wrongdoing."
    [Delgado, 466 U.S. at 216.]




    A search triggers Fourth Amendment protections when (1) the individual personally held an expectation of privacy in the searched object or place and (2) society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable. [Katz, 389 U.S. at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring). See also Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 177-78 (1984).]

    In order for the expectation of privacy to be deemed reasonable, there must be some property law or social norm that signifies that the searched object or place is closed from public intrusion. [Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998).]
    (Krysta's comment: So the lock on my bags means that I expect them to be closed from public intrusion!)


    An individual is “seized” when, in light of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a government official makes a person reasonably believe that he is not at liberty to leave the official’s presence. [Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991) citing Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573 (1988). See also United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980); Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007).]

    Merely questioning an individual about his identity, regardless of whether he is aware he can leave the officer or refuse to cooperate by not answering, is not a seizure. [United States v. Rodriguez-Franco, 749 F.2d 1555, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985).]

    An immigration officer, like any other person, has the right to ask questions of anyone as long as the immigration officer does not restrain the freedom of an individual, not under arrest, to walk away. [8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)(1)]

    if “the circumstances are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded,” then the encounter may be deemed a seizure. [Delgado, 466 U.S. at 216. See also Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 730.]

    When the interview becomes a seizure, either through a formal arrest or when the circumstances are such that a reasonable person would understand he could not leave, the officer must, at a minimum, have “a reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that the person being questioned is, or is attempting to be, engaged in an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States.” [8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)(2).]


    Back to Krysta's comments:
    So yes, we DO have a right to re-enter our own country, and no the customs people can't prevent that, or interfere by making us "cool our heels" until we give in to their illegal demands. And absent RAS, any demand past proving our citizenship (which is done by showing a passport) is illegal.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    This is going to get a bit long, but there are lots of legal cites to show.
    All but one of these quotes & citations are taken from:
    Protecting the US Perimeter: Border Searches Under the 4th Amendment
    Congressional Research Service
    Yule Kim, 29JUN09


    Some are axiomatically thinking that one has a right to enter the country

    "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." U.S. v. Valentine, 288 F. Supp. 957, 980 (D.P.R. 1968).
    (This is the one quote & citation that is not from that paper.) They are not denying reentry. They are verifying that you are a citizen and have the unqualified right.


    [thinking that] unless a governmental official already has RAS that it would be unlawful for that person to enter or that he is bringing in something illegal.

    Once a search of a person’s body goes beyond a limited intrusion, a court may determine that a non-routine search has occurred. Non-routine border searches may include prolonged detentions, strip searches, body cavity searches, and some X-ray examinations. [United States v. Adekunle, 2 F.3d 559, 562 (5th Cir. 1993) et al]

    To do a cavity search, they had better have RAS or be prepared to defend their actions in court.

    ...courts require a government official to have a "reasonable suspicion” of illegal activity to conduct a non-routine border search. [Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. at 541; United States v. Garcia-Garcia, 319 F.3d 726, 730 (5th Cir. 2003)]

    Is going through your bags a non-routine search? Do you have case law on this?

    If you refuse to answer their questions (which IS your right), not only do you thwart their people-reading skills, you raise the possibility that you are a bad guy, trying to hide something from them.

    "...an officer cannot construe a person’s refusal to be interviewed as sufficient cause to suspect wrongdoing."
    [Delgado, 466 U.S. at 216.]

    That sounds like it is from a ruling referring to LEOs interrogating suspects. In this situation, the customs and immigration officials are determining whether to bypass a routine, but full, review of you and your stuff. They are not suspecting wrongdoing."


    A search triggers Fourth Amendment protections when (1) the individual personally held an expectation of privacy in the searched object or place and (2) society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable. [Katz, 389 U.S. at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring). See also Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 177-78 (1984).]

    In order for the expectation of privacy to be deemed reasonable, there must be some property law or social norm that signifies that the searched object or place is closed from public intrusion. [Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998).]
    (Krysta's comment: So the lock on my bags means that I expect them to be closed from public intrusion!)


    An individual is “seized” when, in light of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a government official makes a person reasonably believe that he is not at liberty to leave the official’s presence. [Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991) citing Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573 (1988). See also United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980); Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007).]

    Merely questioning an individual about his identity, regardless of whether he is aware he can leave the officer or refuse to cooperate by not answering, is not a seizure. [United States v. Rodriguez-Franco, 749 F.2d 1555, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985).]

    An immigration officer, like any other person, has the right to ask questions of anyone as long as the immigration officer does not restrain the freedom of an individual, not under arrest, to walk away. [8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)(1)]

    if “the circumstances are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded,” then the encounter may be deemed a seizure. [Delgado, 466 U.S. at 216. See also Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 730.]

    When the interview becomes a seizure, either through a formal arrest or when the circumstances are such that a reasonable person would understand he could not leave, the officer must, at a minimum, have “a reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that the person being questioned is, or is attempting to be, engaged in an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States.” [8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)(2).]


    Back to Krysta's comments:
    So yes, we DO have a right to re-enter our own country, and no the customs people can't prevent that, or interfere by making us "cool our heels" until we give in to their illegal demands. And absent RAS, any demand past proving our citizenship (which is done by showing a passport) is illegal.
    My replies are in blue. I stopped replying when it became obvious that almost all of your cites are from cases involving stops, searches, and interrogations by LEOs. Show some rulings that say that customs and immigration people, whose duties include routine inspections of stuff entering the country and determining whether you are a citizen, are bound by the exact same restrictions of LEOs stopping people and investigating crimes.

    If you can't, then your post is a dead end.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Suggested reply, "I am cooperating to the full extent required by law. Is there a reason you are demanding extra-legal cooperation for which you have no authority?"
    I do not agree with the article's comment, "By questioning the demands of government agents, of course, Lukacs was committing the crime of "escalation.""

    First, Lukacs did not question the demands of government agents. He simply refused to answer their questions, as is his right to do so. In response, however, the customs agent has the authority to expand the list of questions from a few cursory ones into an a large notebook of them.

    Therefore, to expedite, if someone really wants to adopt this practice (I don't recommend it), I would recommend saying the following: "Sir/Ma'am - I am a U.S. citizen. I have filled out the appropriate documentation and have presented you with a valid and current passport. May I please go now? I have somewhere I need to be." If they don't let you go, simply state, "I refuse to answer any further questions."

    They have the authority to do a more substantial background check, including getting two or more people to verify database photos, and possibly even taking fingerprints (though I'm not sure as to the latter). That might take a while!

    They do not have the authority to "force him to sit for two, three, four hours until he cools down." That's unlawful detainment and legal action can be taken in response.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  22. #22
    Regular Member pmcqueen37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Dearborn Heights, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    246
    live every day like its your last cause one day you will be right

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    387
    I have to say that it is extremely rare to get anything more than a " Good morning, afternoon, etc" and "Welcome home" from customs.
    However on one occasion coming back from Germany, already irritated by a sinus infection I picked up while there, the customs agent for some reason found it odd that I didn't bring anything back. We went back and forth a bit until I finally told him that "all I brought back was a pocketful of change and a F'ing cold". He looked discussed as he stamped my passport and sent me on my way.
    I really think their priorities are:
    1: duties
    2: nationality
    3: if non-American, duties
    4: if American, duties
    5: proper papers
    6: potential criminal (if paying duties then criminal status is OK)
    7: Health concerns
    8: duties

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Toad View Post
    SNIP I finally told him that "all I brought back was a pocketful of change and a F'ing cold". He looked discussed as he stamped my passport and sent me on my way.
    "Well, unless there is a duty on the common cold, I'm afraid I've nothing to declare except a moist hanky."

    "All I brought back was this rare infection. It only affects travelers and Customs Agents."


  25. #25
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    Eye95, I'm not going to try and make this a personal attack but it'll probably seem that way. But it seems to me like you will allow yourself to be herded by appointed officials into doing whatever they desire and in violation of your God given rights. I for one will not allow any tyrannical bastards to take from me the self defense tools I have just because they think they are enforcing "the law". In my case especially as a Uniformed Armed Forces soldier under orders from the Dept of the Army, and he's gonna hassle me. Doesn't work for me.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •