links18 said:
A US CBP officer can't deny a Us citizen the right to enter their own country, but he has the right to conduct a "reasonable" examination and search, which the courts have ruled can include such things as dismantling your car to see if there is any hidden contraband. Basically, what governs the nature of your interaction with CBP is the mood of the particular officer and things such as the number of times you have crossed previously at that particular crossing, etc.
I think Depenabill is referencing the fact that he could have faced ramifications for presenting a passport that was not his at the border (by mistake), not for having two validly obtained passports from two countries.
Yep.
More succinctly said than I would . . . or perhaps even could.
Otherwise, that other thing, it is rude to shout what someone whispers. My reputation is bad enough, no need to go broadcasting the truth. (Or, as Oscar Wilde is purported to have said, by John Le Carré,
"If one tells the truth, one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out.")
nope said:
Dpenabill, there are two things I don't understand about your encounter -- I know that a border official can be unpleasant, but as a US citizen, you have the right to enter the country. What exactly are the variables in play, where they would derive some benefit from screaming hostility?
What
links18 said . . . and:
Both U.S. and Canadian border officers have very extensive and broad authority to investigate any and all persons seeking entry into the respective country, authority way, way beyond what typical law enforcement has in the respective countries. For example, the contents of cell phones and lap tops can be examined, even seized for further examination, for
no stated cause whatsoever. Vehicles can be dismantled in the process of conducting searches for no articulated cause, let alone probable cause.
It is correct that the POE officers cannot turn a U.S. citizen back at the border, so long as, of course, the person has affirmatively established their identity and citizenship. Here too, however, the officers have very extensive and broad authority to investigate and make inquiry for the purpose of verifying the identity and status of the person seeking entry.
In ten thousand instances, compared to one, presentation of passport suffices, maybe a few questions (I have quite commony been asked "where am I from?" really meaning where was I born -- the officer knows, since he is looking at the bio page in my passport and it has my birthplace right there). But again, the POE officers have very extensive and broad authority to detain and question
anyone for the purpose of verifying their identity and status.
And there is no effective recourse for being subject to even a grossly unfair border search and interrogation; at most, a complaint of particularly egregious behavior might lead to an officer's discipline, but I suspect this is very rare . . . unless it is one of those (often difficult to document) situations in which (after perhaps dozens if not hundreds of abuses) a border officer is caught sexually exploiting travelers, or where an errant and unauthorized use of a firearm is involved.
On that one very severe occasion for me, I was driving a rented vehicle, registered in the U.S. but in a state a long, long way from where I was crossing the border (just happened to be the one the agency had available), and that state as well as the state I was crossing into were both a long way from the state I was living in at the time and carried a drivers license from (there is a long but entirely innocent but not much interesting story about why I was there, then, and again I would be tempted to say, with affection,
"there was a woman to blame"). The vehicle was a pickup with a bed cover which had a broken latch/lock, and was difficult to open even when not locked. So I kept it unlocked. It was empty. But the PIL officer wanted to inspect it (this is common even if not frequent, the booth officer having the driver pop the trunk and the PIL officer basically glancing at its contents, no referral to secondary). That PIL officer, I later realized, was new and a rather nervous sort, and when she wanted the key to the bed lock I made the mistake of instead attempting to go to rear of the pickup to show her how to jiggle the latch/lock to get it open, trying to explain at the same time it was not locked but difficult to unlatch. I do not know what she thought, why she was suddenly frightened, but she essentially freaked out, and from there things went from bad to very bad to worse, and I ended up being escorted inside, forcefully held for a time, and interrogated by this big armed guy who was indeed hostile and intimidating, and literally shouting inches from my face. They have the authority to do this. He did not put a hand on me. It was entirely verbal and at a distance, a rather small distance, but not touching me.
In such situations there is not much an individual can do to make things easier or accelerate how long it takes beyond remaining calm, answering questions politely, and being truthful and forthcoming. There is a lot an individual can do to make things worse, easily.
It is not so easy, however, to hold back and stay composed in such circumstances. I was surprised how some very, very long ago experiences helped me stay calm, digging into my old on-the-streets-and-air-heavy-with-teargas experiences during some anti-Vietnam war events, skirmishes of a sort, in the 60s and early 70s. (I've been around awhile.)
Historically, over the previous decades, I made Canadian/U.S. border crossings into the hundreds of times rarely having to even show identification. I am not a young man. While I quickly got used to the changes after 9/11, eventually having to show identification every time (although this did not happen coming into Canada until around 2009 or so, as I vaguely recall), and then a passport every time (PR card coming into Canada), it took that event for me to realize the extent to which the interaction can go sideways fast if and when
stuff happens, easily aggravated by miscommunication, and sooner or later
stuff does happen (I've lived long enough to have more than a few tales to tell).
Make no mistake: border officers have very extensive and broad authority to investigate even the country's own citizens.
nope said:
I also don't understand your comment about having your passport seized, and forbidden to apply for another one for ten years. Canada and the US both permit dual citizenship -- why would there be such a severe penalty for either becoming aware of the existence of a second passport? Since it's routine for belongings to be searched, what do they do if, during such a search, they discover a second passport?
Again, what
links18 said . . . and:
Technically it is illegal to be in possession of any Canadian passport (similarly as to U.S. passport) except one's own passport, with limited exceptions (government officials obviously, mailman delivering passport in mail, parent carrying accompanying family members' passports, among a few others). Technically it is illegal to give or allow someone else to be in possession of your passport (with similar exceptions). Among the potential penalties: loss of passport and being barred from being issued a passport for up to ten years (this is the Canadian penalty), which can be imposed on both a person illegally in possession of another's passport, and on a person who allows someone else to illegally possess or use their passport. There is an
intent element which determines whether there is a crime, an infraction, or simply a violation of the statutory requirements, and is relevant to what the applicable penalty should be. Obviously, if the intent is to use the passport fraudulently or facilitate a fraudulent use by someone else, the most severe consequences apply. Lack of intent, an innocent mistake, is a defense, but does not go far if the government officer being dealt with does not believe you.
It may warrant noting that there appears to have been a significant increase in passport denials and prohibitions during the last couple years the Conservatives formed the government. Just because a person is a citizen does not entitle them to a passport. There are various grounds for not issuing a citizen a passport.
Among one of the cases I have seen in the last couple years was indeed a case where a woman had another woman's passport in a shoe (I think it was in luggage in the car but cannot recall for sure), discovered when she was entering the U.S. Canada took her passport and prohibited her from being issued another. I do not recall the ultimate outcome in detail, but as best I can remember I think the woman was eventually allowed to get another passport, or at least the matter was returned for another decision-maker to decide. The woman whose passport was in the shoe had been traveling with the woman who was caught at the border, and submitted a statement (again, this is based on my somewhat vague recall) that it was her passport, the two had been traveling together, but she had stayed behind when the other was going into the U.S., and she inadvertently left her passport in the car.
Remember, I was alone (spouse not with me) and I actually handed the officer at the PIL my partner's passport as if it was my identification (I just looked at the cover, to be sure I was handing him
my Canadian passport, no idea that I had my partner's with me, not my own). It is so easy to make mistakes in life. Or, perhaps I tend to make more than most. I was, nonetheless, most relieved when the officer fully understood (he probably thought I was a total fool, and it was indeed a foolish mistake to make) and there was no problem.
nope said:
I'm curious if your knowledge of immigration extends to US law and practices; I have a complex question I'd like to ask you, if that's the case.
To be clear, as I have oft said with emphasis:
I am NOT a Canadian lawyer. I have no background or experience in Canadian law, none whatsoever.
I am NOT an expert regarding immigration or citizenship. I have no background, education, training, or professional experience in any aspect of immigration in any jurisdiction.
Beyond that (
at the risk of talking about things loudly which I prefer to at most whisper) . . .
. . . I am very hesitant to state my credentials, all based
outside Canada, to avoid any confusion about the source of what I post, to avoid any suggestion that I am personally an authority. I am
not an authoritative source.
What I post is derived from my personal experience traveling to Canada (over the course of more than a half century) and then immigrating to Canada, and eventually becoming a Canadian citizen (nearly two years ago now), pursuant to which I basically adopted the hobby of following, researching, analyzing, and discussing a
few specific aspects of Canadian immigration and citizenship, my interests actually being quite narrow in scope (residency or presence requirements being, perhaps, the biggest one, and specific requirements for naturalization, and to some extent border examinations). That is, my hobby is predominantly in regards to preserving PR status and naturalized citizenship in Canada.
This should not seem unusual. Many jurists tend to be compulsive about areas of law that interest them.
My posts are typically much longer than what others post, in large part because I make a concerted effort to include my sources, my analysis, my reasoning, the
how and
why underlying my observations in addition to simply the
what, so that what I post can be understood and assessed with
NO regard to who I am personally, with no reliance on me personally as an authority -- since, indeed, I am
NOT an authority.
In any event, as for U.S. immigration, I am familiar with the country, some (many unpleasant memories and more), did some writing recently about eye-witness identification in criminal cases there (my day job so to say, which fortunately does not require me to spend any time there), and I know what a Green Card is, but beyond that I don't know much about the U.S immigration system. I hear that it is a disaster.
