# Do Border Patrol agents still board Amtrak trains in NY and elsewhere?



## ToniCounter (Jul 19, 2016)

Do Border Patrol agents still board Amtrak trains in NY and elsewhere?

What happens if a natural-born US citizen refuses to answer their questions?


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 19, 2016)

They have been doing sweeps of the westbound 7 at WFH recently, but not long enough to delay the train. They show up 10-20 minutes before arrival and leave immediately after departure.


----------



## tim49424 (Jul 19, 2016)

I saw them in Minot a couple years ago and one with a drug dog in El Paso last fall. I wasn't approached either time.


----------



## BCL (Jul 19, 2016)

ToniCounter said:


> Do Border Patrol agents still board Amtrak trains in NY and elsewhere?
> 
> What happens if a natural-born US citizen refuses to answer their questions?


I'd point out that a natural-born US citizen has no special privileges with respect to law enforcement that a naturalized US citizen wouldn't have. You know, 14th Amendment? Does "Equal Protection Clause" ring a bell? About the only thing is Presidential and Vice-Presidential eligibility.

That being said, the worst thing that could happen is that Amtrak personnel require compliance and enforce it by forcing a passenger off a train for noncompliance. I don't know if the Border Patrol is busy on Amtrak, but the DEA and local law enforcement do run drug busts.


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 19, 2016)

ToniCounter said:


> What happens if a natural-born US citizen refuses to answer their questions?


Please let us know the answer when you do it. I, and I am sure many others who value privacy, would like to know.


----------



## PVD (Jul 19, 2016)

The whole Border Patrol thing in NY was a joke. They used to come on in Syracuse using the "within 100 miles of the border criteria" They took a beating from NY politicians when it became brutally apparent they were not trying to protect us from people entering the country illegally, they were trying to find ways to make drug arrests, normally the job of other law enforcement agencies, to justify jobs in their region. When they delayed a few trains the s--t hit the fan. Establishing "reasonable suspicion" while a much lower threshold than probable cause, is still pretty hard to establish with someone already on a train, and not boarding The courts have not always been kind to Border Patrol, they have a track record of pushing the envelope in ways they can't always justify when someone fights back.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jul 19, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> They have been doing sweeps of the westbound 7 at WFH recently, but not long enough to delay the train. They show up 10-20 minutes before arrival and leave immediately after departure.


 why just #7, why not #8?


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 19, 2016)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > They have been doing sweeps of the westbound 7 at WFH recently, but not long enough to delay the train. They show up 10-20 minutes before arrival and leave immediately after departure.
> ...


I haven't been at the station to observe due to work, so I only know about 7


----------



## PVD (Jul 19, 2016)

There are plenty of legit reasons for law enforcement activity at or around trains and stations. My comments are strictly aimed at ones that were blatantly stupid or abusive. We have also seen agencies play the "civil asset forfeiture" game, a perversion of what should be a useful tool in fighting crime,and that has been discussed extensively in the past.


----------



## bmjhagen9426 (Jul 19, 2016)

Never seen one. The most likely point that they would board my train would be at Seattle (less than 100 miles from the Canadian border), but if you count the coastlines as a border and apply the 100-mile rule, it could be possible from Seattle to Eugene, and then Sacramento to Los Angeles. Which, again, they never boarded my train any of 20 times that I've been riding. What's it like when the border patrol boards the train (in terms of what are they looking for, and what kind of questions might they ask), other than holding the train while they are on? And what are the likelyhood for border patrol encounters on the trains that I will be riding (Sunset Limited, Southwest Chief, or Empire Builder)? I am not intending to avoid them, as I would be ready to answer any questions they might have.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jul 19, 2016)

so ling as I don't break any laws, they don't get personal, but I don't bring much into the US, since I have imported a shirt, a jacket, four apples (from CA, so maybe not even importing?), and three plastic bags, and whatever was in my stomach.


----------



## BCL (Jul 20, 2016)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> so ling as I don't break any laws, they don't get personal, but I don't bring much into the US, since I have imported a shirt, a jacket, four apples (from CA, so maybe not even importing?), and three plastic bags, and whatever was in my stomach.


Border Patrol doesn't particularly care about what you bring into the US as long as it's not contraband or illegal immigrants. That's Customs, which was traditionally an arm of the Treasury Department.


----------



## chakk (Jul 20, 2016)

I believe train passengers entering the USA from vancouver ca are checked by us border patrol and customs in the vancouver station now, rather than on board the train itself.

Don't know what is done in the East, as it's been longer than Amtrak since I rode that route.


----------



## bmjhagen9426 (Jul 20, 2016)

Well, good points, but my question is really whether or not the border patrol guys hop on a train that does not cross borders but otherwise come close to the borders (i.e. less than 100 miles away from the borders), and if they do, how likely.


----------



## seat38a (Jul 20, 2016)

They boarded last year in Havre Montana eastbound Empire Builder.


----------



## caravanman (Jul 20, 2016)

My feeling is that with the Trump nomination, they may well be trying to curb excess numbers of Americans from LEAVING! 

Ed.


----------



## niemi24s (Jul 20, 2016)

bmjhagen9426 said:


> . . .my question is really whether or not the border patrol guys hop on a train that does not cross borders but otherwise come close to the borders (i.e. less than 100 miles away from the borders), and if they do, how likely.


How likely? The probability (likelihood) of a Border Patrol agent boarding _any_ Amtrak train is 0.173 or 17.3%. And even though I pulled that number right out of my Underoos, it's about as good as any other answer you're likely to get here - or anyplace else for that matter.


----------



## jis (Jul 20, 2016)

Does anyone remember whether the so called "Border Patrol" agents that used to board were actually CBP agents or ICE agents? I keep hearing the 100 miles thing so I surmise they are CBP agents, since they are not allowed to do anything beyond the 100 mile of the border area. OTOH ICE agents are allowed to operate anywhere within the US AFAICT, since their charter is to interdict illegal activities pertaining to or related to customs and immigration within the US. Roughly speaking their responsibility is described thusly:



> responsible for identifying, investigating, and dismantling vulnerabilities regarding the nation's border, economic, transportation, and infrastructure security. ICE has two primary components: Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).


Whenever I look up "US Border Patrol" usually it points to CBP.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 20, 2016)

jis said:


> Does anyone remember whether the so called "Border Patrol" agents that used to board were actually CBP agents or ICE agents? I keep hearing the 100 miles thing so I surmise they are CBP agents, since they are not allowed to do anything beyond the 100 mile of the border area. OTOH ICE agents are allowed to operate anywhere within the US AFAICT, since their charter is to interdict illegal activities pertaining to or related to customs and immigration within the US. Roughly speaking their responsibility is described thusly:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In WFH it has been CBP


----------



## BCL (Jul 20, 2016)

jis said:


> Does anyone remember whether the so called "Border Patrol" agents that used to board were actually CBP agents or ICE agents? I keep hearing the 100 miles thing so I surmise they are CBP agents, since they are not allowed to do anything beyond the 100 mile of the border area. OTOH ICE agents are allowed to operate anywhere within the US AFAICT, since their charter is to interdict illegal activities pertaining to or related to customs and immigration within the US. Roughly speaking their responsibility is described thusly:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Border Patrol has "sectors" based in Miami and New Orleans.

https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-patrol-sectors

They have the authority to do certain things without a warrant within 100 miles of the border. Also, the definition of border includes water boundaries.


----------



## PVD (Jul 20, 2016)

In NY they were what used to be Border Patrol, not what used to br INS. Getting on a train that doesn't cross the border had nothing to do with border security. If someone snuck in from Canada and made it to Syracuse, me seeing someone walking through the train asking people what country they are from is not exactly reassuring. The whole picture became muddled when they all went under the Homeland Security umbrella, and they fight for recognition in a mega bureaucracy. There have been numerous cases where they have done things far in excess of their legal rights and mission, they have admitted to having not done a good job with training and supervision. All of these agencies have important jobs to do, if they focused on their real missions instead of what brings positive cash flow and big headlines we would all be better off.


----------



## jis (Jul 20, 2016)

According to CBP, here is what the Border Patrol Operations are supposed to do:

https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/overview

It apparently does include drug traffic interdiction, in addition to illegal human traffic interdiction. Not saying anything about whether it is right or wrong. Just providing information on what their mission is according to them.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 20, 2016)

The Border Patrol/INS inspections of the LSL seem to have stopped some time ago. Complaints from Amtrak and local and state government officials seem to have brought about an end to these stupid inspections. Or maybe, they never found anybody and decided it was a waste of time.


----------



## KnightRail (Jul 21, 2016)

Relative to this discussion is how this WSJ reporter recently learned electrionic devices are fair game for CBP. Traveling across the border or within 100 miles of it on the train, sounds like you phone, tablet, etc is fair game no questions.

http://wesh.com/money/feds-try-to-forcefully-search-wall-street-journal-reporters-phone/40821836


----------



## bmjhagen9426 (Jul 21, 2016)

KnightRail said:


> Relative to this discussion is how this WSJ reporter recently learned electrionic devices are fair game for CBP. Traveling across the border or within 100 miles of it on the train, sounds like you phone, tablet, etc is fair game no questions.
> 
> http://wesh.com/money/feds-try-to-forcefully-search-wall-street-journal-reporters-phone/40821836


What do you mean by fair game? And when they play fair game on electronic devices (to include my laptop that I am writing this reply from), what would they look for?


----------



## ToniCounter (Jul 21, 2016)

KnightRail said:


> Relative to this discussion is how this WSJ reporter recently learned electrionic devices are fair game for CBP. Traveling across the border or within 100 miles of it on the train, sounds like you phone, tablet, etc is fair game no questions.
> 
> http://wesh.com/money/feds-try-to-forcefully-search-wall-street-journal-reporters-phone/40821836



The Canadian agents also has the same legal authority to conficated AND demand the password.

"The Customs Act (s99) authorizes officers to examine all goods and conveyances including electronic devices, such as cell phones and laptops." She explained that the potential punishment for Philippon is a minimum fine of $1000 and a maximum fine of $25,000 and could include possible jail time.


----------



## niemi24s (Jul 21, 2016)

bmjhagen9426 said:


> . . . what would they look for?


You don't really expect to get a meaningful answer _here_, do you? But if you do, how about "They'd look for anything they'd want to look for!"


----------



## PVD (Jul 21, 2016)

Border Patrol was in the news again today. They settled a case for a half million dollars for illegal invasive search. They very often step over the line of what they are legally entitled to do. Apparently, what the agency thinks it can do and the courts and laws don't always match. Most people don't have a problem (or shouldn't) with checkpoints at or near actual border crossings (usually handled by Customs) but CBP/Border Patrol constantly tries to push the envelope on what is a "border". In the course of their legitimate function, they have to deal with pretty unsavory characters like human traffickers and drug smugglers. But they sometimes forget why they are there, and try to make drug cases a higher priority because it brings in the money and looks good. That is really the prime job of other agencies. They often step over the line in their treatment of US citizens, it has cost them dearly in many court cases. Their rights to question/inspect you including electronic devices at certain locations is very limited, not the same as a Customs inspection when crossing from another country.

ACLU Border Rights ENGLISH.pdf


----------



## bmjhagen9426 (Jul 21, 2016)

I am aware that Border Patrol makes the news. I've seen YouTube videos of Border Patrols entering the train and asking questions regarding citizenship. Also, I have heard (and seen a video about it) of an incident where a clergyman in Arizona was brutalized at the "internal checkpoint" and had to go to the court to fight for his innocence.

As for crossing the line in treating US citizens, what kind of mistreatment?


----------



## ToniCounter (Aug 25, 2016)

bmjhagen9426 said:


> Well, good points, but my question is really whether or not the border patrol guys hop on a train that does not cross borders but otherwise come close to the borders (i.e. less than 100 miles away from the borders), and if they do, how likely.


they do... personally saw two on Amtrak train between NY and PA last week of July. (trains not going to/from Canada)


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 25, 2016)

bmjhagen9426 said:


> KnightRail said:
> 
> 
> > Relative to this discussion is how this WSJ reporter recently learned electrionic devices are fair game for CBP. Traveling across the border or within 100 miles of it on the train, sounds like you phone, tablet, etc is fair game no questions.
> ...


Uh-oh, my Dad and I stopped off at Derby Line, VT on our drive home from Maine. We went to see the Library that was built right across the border. I could have had my cellphone camera confiscated as I was taking a picture of my dad right at the border pylon.  Good thing no border patrol agents drove by.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 25, 2016)

PVD said:


> but CBP/Border Patrol constantly tries to push the envelope on what is a "border".


There are armed Border Patrol and CBP agents roaming the public areas of the Ronald Reagan Building in down town DC. Yeah, I know, it's the agency HQ, but we're at least 20 miles from the nearest Port of Entry (Dulles or BWI) and 100 mile from the coast. If we at EPA next door can handle our security needs with rent-a-cops, surely CBP can, to.


----------



## ToniCounter (Aug 25, 2016)

MARC Rider said:


> PVD said:
> 
> 
> > but CBP/Border Patrol constantly tries to push the envelope on what is a "border".
> ...


Don't forget another airport that's much closer to downtown DC! 

DCA is also considered a point of entry for that purpose.

Air Canada and American fly to/from Canada. JetBlue

flies to the Bahamas. Although incoming passengers

go through pre-clearance when boarding at those foreign

cities. DCA is only 2 miles away in a straight line. 

In addition, US CBP has agents posted at DCA. I assume

to clear private flights arriving from foreign airports.

Andrews also has foreign VIP flights landing there, so it can

also "technically" be considered a border.

Then there's the port of Baltimore, a huge port receiving

hundreds of foreign ships.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 25, 2016)

I saw the CBP on my recent trip this past July coming home on the LSL at Buffalo. However, their inspection from what I could tell seemed very targeted; as in they had some info and were looking for someone in particular. And we didn't take much of a delay at all because of it.

This IMHO has seemed to be the case the last few years, that is to say, their visits are brief and apparently targeted when they happen. Contrast that to several years ago when the inspections were quite regular and took a long time and considerably delayed the trains. While of course it was never proven, and would probably be hard to prove without insider info, there were many in the press and the public (especially the riding public) who felt that the inspections were ordered by the very anti-Amtrak, anti-rail Bush administration to delay the trains and make riding more inconvenient and make the delays worse than they already were. After the media started picking up the story a lot, the inspections slowed down, went quicker when they happened, etc. This if memory serves started to happen during the final 2 years of the Bush administration and the trend has continued.

I'm not sure just how many were ever caught on the LSL, but there were several illegals caught on the Empire Builder over the years, including one rather high profile case. And inspections have caught many on the Pacific Surfliners coming up from San Diego. In fact, for many years that train seemed to be both a drug & illegal's run. It's not so much anymore to my knowledge, but still they continue inspections in order to ensure that the Pacific Surfliner's don't once again become a train for those avoiding the law.

My big issue with these inspections years ago was the huge delay incurred. 300 people were delayed for a hour or longer sometimes, just in the hope that they might catch one illegal. I'm of the mind that if they can't target someone specifically, then they either shouldn't be there, or if they want to go fishing then they need to board the train and stay on the train until the next station or some convenient crossing. Delaying 300 for a fishing expedition shouldn't be allowed IMHO.


----------



## ToniCounter (Aug 25, 2016)

AlanB said:


> I saw the CBP on my recent trip this past July coming home on the LSL at Utica. However, their inspection from what I could tell seemed very targeted; as in they had some info and were looking for someone in particular. And we didn't take much of a delay at all because of it.
> 
> This IMHO has seemed to be the case the last few years, that is to say, their visits are brief and apparently targeted when they happen. Contrast that to several years ago when the inspections were quite regular and took a long time and considerably delayed the trains. While of course it was never proven, and would probably be hard to prove without insider info, there were many in the press and the public (especially the riding public) who felt that the inspections were ordered by the very anti-Amtrak, anti-rail Bush administration to delay the trains and make riding more inconvenient and make the delays worse than they already were. After the media started picking up the story a lot, the inspections slowed down, went quicker when they happened, etc. This if memory serves started to happen during the final 2 years of the Bush administration and the trend has continued.
> 
> ...



Don't forget the Border Patrol's plan to build an inspection station

on the interstate near Youngstown, OH... near where I-78 and I-80

meet. (both carry a LOT of vehicle traffic between New York City

and Chicago.... so a lot of illegal aliens travel on these routes)

This is similar to what they have on interstates in California and

Arizona, both near the southern border with Mexico.

Last I heard, the plan never went anywhere because of objections

from Ohio and Pennsylvania members of congress, as well as funding

problems.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 25, 2016)

MARC Rider said:


> PVD said:
> 
> 
> > but CBP/Border Patrol constantly tries to push the envelope on what is a "border".
> ...


Airports are not considered a border. A border is defined as an ocean or between Mexico or Canada. So for example, a CBP agent could not board the LSL in Albany, NY because Albany also happens to have an international airport. Which is why they always target the LSL in either Erie, PA; Buffalo, NY; or Rochester, NY.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 25, 2016)

ToniCounter said:


> Don't forget the Border Patrol's plan to build an inspection station
> 
> on the interstate near Youngstown, OH... near where I-78 and I-80
> 
> ...


I suppose that there could be another reason that the plan went no where. They used to have an inspection point on I-87 well south of the Canadian border, but still within the 100 mile limit. The problem was that they literally stopped you right on the road to ask you a few quick questions, before either allowing you to continue or telling you to pull into the rest area right by the inspection point. After a few high profile crashes, including one where at least one car caught fire and IIRC someone died, the inspection point was abandoned.


----------



## ToniCounter (Aug 25, 2016)

AlanB said:


> I suppose that there could be another reason that the plan went no where. They used to have an inspection point on I-87 well south of the Canadian border, but still within the 100 mile limit. The problem was that they literally stopped you right on the road to ask you a few quick questions, before either allowing you to continue or telling you to pull into the rest area right by the inspection point. After a few high profile crashes, including one where at least one car caught fire and IIRC someone died, the inspection point was abandoned.


That hasn't stopped them from operating the current inspection stations on the interstates/highway in California and Arizona?


----------



## AlanB (Aug 25, 2016)

ToniCounter said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose that there could be another reason that the plan went no where. They used to have an inspection point on I-87 well south of the Canadian border, but still within the 100 mile limit. The problem was that they literally stopped you right on the road to ask you a few quick questions, before either allowing you to continue or telling you to pull into the rest area right by the inspection point. After a few high profile crashes, including one where at least one car caught fire and IIRC someone died, the inspection point was abandoned.
> ...


 It could be that those inspection stations are in a safer location, or perhaps the amount of people being caught continues to justify the risk. Do they stop you at those places right on the highway in the travel lanes? Or do you have to pull off the road? On I-87, they stopped you in the travel lane. Sometimes causing a 1 hour backup on the highway, a highway that isn't exactly the most heavily traveled highway around.


----------



## PVD (Aug 25, 2016)

Don't forget, What used to be Border Patrol, Customs, and INS were all lumped into Homeland Security, but they have distinct functions. Customs (dark blue) will be seen at airports and ports, and border crossings all the time. Not the same function as the green suit CBP (former Border Patrol) I have been critical of a lot of their missteps, but to be fair, the agency was drastically increased in size over a short period of time, the ability to screen candidates, train new officers and supervise them properly has been severely tested. The agency got its marching orders, and they really could not say no, we can't add all of these extra officers, tough luck. It just doesn't work that way.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 25, 2016)

Forgetting about the Port of Albany. Foreign flag vessel delivering goods directly. CBP definition of a boarder is much large that you would think.

The reason you see CBP in Erie area is due to a large base they have there. You can see it from the highway.


----------



## PVD (Aug 25, 2016)

That one South of Lake Placid was dangerous. They used to wade out into I87 and wave little slow down signs and stop signs at cars and trucks going 70 mph. After a while they set up the cone lines and electric signs, but honestly if anyone coming here to cause a problem made it 70+ miles south of the border crossing, they wouldn't go down I87 through a well known checkpoint.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 25, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Forgetting about the Port of Albany. Foreign flag vessel delivering goods directly. CBP definition of a boarder is much large that you would think.
> 
> The reason you see CBP in Erie area is due to a large base they have there. You can see it from the highway.


Doesn't change things. The ship is just like the airport; they can board the ship because it's coming from abroad. But they cannot board the train at ALB because of that. Albany itself is not within 100 miles of a border.


----------



## ToniCounter (Aug 25, 2016)

PVD said:


> That one South of Lake Placid was dangerous. They used to wade out into I87 and wave little slow down signs and stop signs at cars and trucks going 70 mph. After a while they set up the cone lines and electric signs, but honestly if anyone coming here to cause a problem made it 70+ miles south of the border crossing, they wouldn't go down I87 through a well known checkpoint.


What other road



AlanB said:


> Doesn't change things. The ship is just like the airport; they can board the ship because it's coming from abroad. But they cannot board the train at ALB because of that. Albany itself is not within 100 miles of a border.


true, but Albany is basically trapped in the middle of those zones:

I haven't looked at this map in a while. It just occurred to me that a lot of Amtrak train go through the 100-mile border zone.


----------



## PVD (Aug 25, 2016)

The 2 different groups also have different sets of legal doctrines under which they operate, but that is a lengthy topic that probably does not need to be on this board. The information is readily available online. Answer to other question: rt 9, or 9W or 9N until past the checkpoint


----------



## AlanB (Aug 25, 2016)

PVD said:


> That one South of Lake Placid was dangerous. They used to wade out into I87 and wave little slow down signs and stop signs at cars and trucks going 70 mph. After a while they set up the cone lines and electric signs, but honestly if anyone coming here to cause a problem made it 70+ miles south of the border crossing, they wouldn't go down I87 through a well known checkpoint.


After the first few accidents, they installed a whole bunch of warning signs. IIRC, the first one's appeared 5 miles away from the actual inspection point. Might have been 3. Despite those warning signs, the accidents continued. 

I used to drive that highway with some regularity, going to the Lake Placid area a few times a year. Even I often started taking back roads, even though that would typically be slower, simply to avoid the delays caused by the inspection point, which made the normally faster route slower than the back roads.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 25, 2016)

AlanB said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> > PVD said:
> ...


When I fly internationally and arrive home and go through Customs, there are Border Patrol Agents hanging around, as well as the regular CBP inspectors. I think from their point of view a "Port of Entry" is a Port of Entry, whether it's the Rouses's Point or the international arrivals hall at BWI or Dulles. I hadn't thought about how they consider airports like DCA that handle only pre-cleared passengers from abroad. Presumably they know who's coming in, so they'd only need to send their agents there is there was a "person of interest" on one of the inbound flights. Heck, now they know who's coming in even at the regular international arrivals, but they still need the opportunity to extract duties and check bags for contraband.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 25, 2016)

ToniCounter said:


> PVD said:
> 
> 
> > That one South of Lake Placid was dangerous. They used to wade out into I87 and wave little slow down signs and stop signs at cars and trucks going 70 mph. After a while they set up the cone lines and electric signs, but honestly if anyone coming here to cause a problem made it 70+ miles south of the border crossing, they wouldn't go down I87 through a well known checkpoint.
> ...


Yeah, for example all of the NEC. As well as VRE, MARC, SEPTA, NJT, LIRR, Metro North, Shore Line, MBTA, etc.

Not to mention the corridors and commuter operations on the West Coast.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the jackbooted forces of the 'Migra started questioning passengers on the Acela.....


----------



## AlanB (Aug 25, 2016)

MARC Rider said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > MARC Rider said:
> ...


They're allowed at a port/point of entry. But only at that specific point of entry; unless they are within 100 miles of a border. So the CBP can show up for example at the airport in Phoenix, Arizona to check people. But they cannot board the SWC in Phoenix because it's not within 100 miles of a border.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 25, 2016)

MARC Rider said:


> Yeah, for example all of the NEC. As well as VRE, MARC, SEPTA, NJT, LIRR, Metro North, Shore Line, MBTA, etc.
> 
> Not to mention the corridors and commuter operations on the West Coast.
> 
> It would be interesting to see what would happen if the jackbooted forces of the 'Migra started questioning passengers on the Acela.....


You raise an interesting point. In all my years of riding the LSL, typically 2 or 3 times a year, only once have I ever seen the CBP walk through the sleeping cars. They generally only swept the coach cars.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 25, 2016)

ToniCounter said:


> PVD said:
> 
> 
> > That one South of Lake Placid was dangerous. They used to wade out into I87 and wave little slow down signs and stop signs at cars and trucks going 70 mph. After a while they set up the cone lines and electric signs, but honestly if anyone coming here to cause a problem made it 70+ miles south of the border crossing, they wouldn't go down I87 through a well known checkpoint.
> ...


I drove I-87 south from Rouse's Point to North Hudson (well beyond Lake Placid), and there were no checkpoints.

About 10 years ago, I drove though one set up on I-91 right before White River Junction. Pointless as well, because there were lots of alternate routes around it.

Out west it's different. There's one on US 90 about 20 miles east of Uvalde, TX that's pretty hard to bypass, though there is a local road northeast out of Bracketville that will do the job. There's one on I-5 north of San Diego in the middle of Camp Pendleton that's impossible to bypass. I'm not sure whethere's there's a checkpoint on I-15, I've never driven that one.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 25, 2016)

The I-87 check point has probably been gone for at least 10 years now. Might be a bit longer than that, don't really recall just when they abandoned it.


----------



## PVD (Aug 25, 2016)

I'm thinking in the ten year range also, give or take a few in either direction. I used to run some programs at the Olympic Training Center in LP, and passed it a few times. OTC didn't have a driver one day and I took a USOC van down to Albany Airport to pick up some coaches, just got a wave. Most of the time it was closed when I went through, going home even when it was still there. Everyone knows terrorists, smugglers and people sneaking in to the country don't work nights and weekends.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 25, 2016)

Actually, most of the times that I encountered it was on either Memorial Day or Labor Day.


----------



## PVD (Aug 25, 2016)

If you and I figured it out, how hard would it be for the bad guys.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 25, 2016)

Not very hard at all.

And there are alternatives to I-87.

Not to mention the fact that someone sneaking over the boarder north of that area would be far more likely to board a bus, or maybe the Adirondack, than to rent/steal a car.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 25, 2016)

I'm not sure exactly where on I-87 the checkpoint was, but Exit 30 (to Lake Placid) is US 9. The very next exit (#29) has Route 9 within 1/2 mile of the exit.


----------



## PVD (Aug 26, 2016)

it was on 87, a little south of exit 30, which is where you would enter/exit to/from LP


----------



## AlanB (Aug 26, 2016)

It was right at the entrance to the High Peaks rest area. If you were selected for further interrogation, then they would order you to pull into the rest area.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 26, 2016)

ToniCounter said:


> PVD said:
> 
> 
> > That one South of Lake Placid was dangerous. They used to wade out into I87 and wave little slow down signs and stop signs at cars and trucks going 70 mph. After a while they set up the cone lines and electric signs, but honestly if anyone coming here to cause a problem made it 70+ miles south of the border crossing, they wouldn't go down I87 through a well known checkpoint.
> ...


How does the Lake Michigan shoreline count as a "coastal border?" Maybe the northern parts, near the Straits of Mackinac are within 100 miles of Canada, but to say that the shoreline at Chicago is the "border," when the other side of the lake is Michigan and the nearest foreign territory (Windsor, ON) is over 230 miles away, is taking things a little too far. Either the ACLU is mistaken, or Homeland Security doesn't know what it's doing.


----------



## StanJazz (Aug 26, 2016)

The ACLU has been lying about how many people are affected by the 100 miles for years. There are other parts of the map that are wrong. The border is a line roughly half way down the middle of the 4 border Great Lakes but the map shows 100 miles from the shoreline. It shows most of northern Wisconsin in the 100 mile zone while the only part that is within 100 miles of the actual border is a small part near The Apostle Islands. About half of the 100 mile zone near Upper Michigan is the open water of Lake Superior. The map may also be wrong along the oceans because the actual border is the 12 mile limit, not the shoreline so only 88 miles in is in the zone.


----------



## tricia (Aug 26, 2016)

StanJazz said:


> The ACLU has been lying about how many people are affected by the 100 miles for years. There are other parts of the map that are wrong. The border is a line roughly half way down the middle of the 4 border Great Lakes but the map shows 100 miles from the shoreline. It shows most of northern Wisconsin in the 100 mile zone while the only part that is within 100 miles of the actual border is a small part near The Apostle Islands. About half of the 100 mile zone near Upper Michigan is the open water of Lake Superior. The map may also be wrong along the oceans because the actual border is the 12 mile limit, not the shoreline so only 88 miles in is in the zone.


Isn't the issue here where Border Patrol considers itself authorized to go, not whatever anyone else thinks the 100-mile limit ought to be?

Is the ACLU's map correctly reporting where the Border Patrol goes? (That's a different question from: Is either the Border Patrol or ACLU over-reaching in its interpretation of the 100-mile limit, and if so, which one of them is over-reaching?)


----------



## jis (Aug 26, 2016)

Things are not as simple as we sitting in our armchairs and deciding that because the other shore is in the US therefore Lake Michigan is not international waters. 

I actually took the trouble to dig into this and found a fascinating rat-hole in and of itself... Here is a quick summary:

The Article I, para 2, of the Boundary Water Treaty of 1909 between US and the Dominion of Canada representing the British Empire, explicitly defines Lake Michigan to be one of Great Lakes that is international water, in addition to the four that actually have shores both on the Canadian and US sides. That is the basis for defining the shoreline of Lake Michigan as coastal boundary for the purposes of commerce and immigration. Short of abrogating that Treaty which both sides like and have no intention of changing, that is where the border of US lies. ACLU is not wrong. There is apparently considerable historical legal basis for what they are saying regarding the location of the border (for the purposes of commerce and immigration which is what is CBP and ICE's remit) as they apply to the Great Lakes, and apparently the DHS is happy to agree with their position.

Note that the Great Lakes Coastal Boundary definition is entirely based on this aforementioned treaty, and it is interesting because by this treaty, waters that would otherwise be arguably entirely within the US are set up as freely navigable by both parties (actually the US and the Dominion of Canada representing the "Empire" of United Kingdom (don't know exactly what part of the 1909 Empire retains residual rights or not. The specific mention of the Dominion of Canada would suggest that none other than Canada today has any residual rights that accrue to them from this treaty) . All of the real coastal boundary facing an ocean or a sea is defined in 46 CFR Part 7, and it says nothing about the Great Lakes.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 26, 2016)

Additionally, for the purpose of establishing the 100-mile zone from an international body of water, CBP measures from the shoreline, not from the 12-nautical mile territorial limit. So, yes, for better or worse, the map produced by the ACLU appears to be correct.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 26, 2016)

jis said:


> Things are not as simple as we sitting in our armchairs and deciding that because the other shore is in the US therefore Lake Michigan is not international waters.
> 
> I actually took the trouble to dig into this and found a fascinating rat-hole in and of itself... Here is a quick summary:
> 
> ...


Man, that is a rathole!

I would interpret what you wrote is saying that a Canadian (or someone who is in Canadian territory) can freely navigate from the Canadian side of Lake Huron, sail through the Straits of Mackinac and into Lake Michigan right up to Chicago or Indiana before they have to report to US Customs and Immigration. I would guess it also allows US individuals to navigate freely on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes/Detroit River/St Lawrence River, etc. Does this "international waters" business apply only to Americans and Canadians (and British (?)), or is the entire St, Lawrence Seaway/Great Lakes considered international waters, allowing all foreign ships free passage from the Atlantic to Duluth and Chicago? Does it mean that the SS Badger, once it sails into "international waters" off Manitowoc and Ludington can open a gambling casino (without Indian help) and sell booze to 18 year olds?

Still, the chances that there are scary foreigners (even Canadians!) skulking about in the "international waters" off of Lake Michigan seems to me to be so low that if I were the secretary of Homeland Security, I would not bother deploying the Border Patrol along the shores of Lake Michigan. As for dealing unauthorized immigrants residing in the areas around Lake Michigan, well, that's what ICE is for, no? The Border Patrol should be deploying its resources to the real border, not the legal fiction border.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 26, 2016)

StanJazz said:


> The ACLU has been lying about how many people are affected by the 100 miles for years.


Sounds like maybe _you're_ the one who has been lying for years. In order to help balance the books I've made a donation to the ACLU in your honor.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 26, 2016)

"The Article I, para 2, of the Boundary Water Treaty of 1909 between US and the British Empire"

Actually between_ "The United States of America and His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India."_

"Note that the Great Lakes Coastal Boundary definition is entirely based on this aforementioned treaty, and it is interesting because by this treaty, waters that would otherwise be arguably entirely within the US are set up as freely navigable by both parties (actually the US and The "Empire" of United Kingdom (don't know exactly what part of the 1909 Empire retains residual rights or not) ."

If you look at the text:

_"being equally desirous to prevent disputes regarding the use of boundary waters and to settle all questions which are now pending between the *United States* and the *Dominion of Canada* involving the rights, obligations, or interests of either in relation to the other or to the inhabitants of the other, along their common frontier, "_

_"ARTICLE I_

_The High Contracting Parties agree that the navigation of all navigable boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purposes of commerce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both countries equally, subject, however, to any laws and regulations of *either* country, within its own territory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation and applying equally and without discrimination to the inhabitants, ships, vessels, and boats of *both* countries."_

it would seem that the treaty applies only to the United States and Canada. Back in 1909, I guess London felt that the Canadians weren't able to negotiate their own treaties. The actual agreement was concluded between the US Secretary of State and the British ambassador to Washington. I wonder if there was any Canadian input at all.


----------



## ToniCounter (Aug 26, 2016)

MARC Rider said:


> it would seem that the treaty applies only to the United States and Canada. Back in 1909, I guess London felt that the Canadians weren't able to negotiate their own treaties. The actual agreement was concluded between the US Secretary of State and the British ambassador to Washington. I wonder if there was any Canadian input at all.


I would certainly hope so... don't think it's anybody's best interest to see Russian or Chinese navy ships or submarines sailing on Lake Michigan.

Although I could swear seeing a National Geographic photo that showed a huge Chinese-flagged cargo ship sailing on Lake Michigan, carrying grains and stuff destined for China.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 26, 2016)

No wonder the State Department and International Diplomacy is such a "Puzzle Palace!"

Cue up Gordon Lightfoot singing "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" and call in the International Marine Lawyers!

Interesting topic for sure!


----------



## jis (Aug 26, 2016)

ToniCounter said:


> I would certainly hope so... don't think it's anybody's best interest to see Russian or Chinese navy ships or submarines sailing on Lake Michigan.
> 
> Although I could swear seeing a National Geographic photo that showed a huge Chinese-flagged cargo ship sailing on Lake Michigan, carrying grains and stuff destined for China.


Neither the Russians nor the Chinese were part of the British Empire ever, so the Treaty would not even potentially apply to them (well barring Hong Kong I suppose  ).

Potentially it could only be other parts of what used to be the British Empire. However, I tend to agree with MARC Rider that the treaty in its intent restricts itself to the Dominion of Canada representing the British Empire.

However, either the US or the Canadians can permit ships of other countries which have duly been allowed to operate in their waters for a specific purpose, like take some cargo brought from outside the US to a specific port. So nothing surprising in seeing a Chinese flagged carrier. It is indeed quite possible that US itself allowed that. This is no different than a ship being allowed to sail up the Savannah River to the Port of Savannah GA, or up the Columbia and Willamette Rivers upto the Port of Portland OR.


----------



## jis (Aug 26, 2016)

Bob Dylan said:


> No wonder the State Department and International Diplomacy is such a "Puzzle Palace!"
> 
> Cue up Gordon Lightfoot singing "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" and call in the International Marine Lawyers!
> 
> Interesting topic for sure!


You have not even seen any of the mess that the British left in the partition of India in the form of the Radcliffe Award, specially in the east, and the consequent borders. There were areas where there were Indian enclave within what is Bangladesh today (was East Pakistan between 1947 and 1971) and vice versa. And there were a few instances where there was a Bangladesh enclave within an Indian enclave within Bangladesh, with no way for the Bangladehsis in the inner enclave to get to the rest of Bangladesh without going through India!!! There were a couple with the roles reversed too!!! A very recent treaty between India and Bangladesh did a significant exchange of land and people to get rid of this mess after 69 years, to straighten out the borders and get rid of all, enclaves. Of course meandering and moving river beds that were used to define some borders did not help much either. Now it is all defined using actual GPS based definition.


----------



## PVD (Aug 26, 2016)

US port to US port with no foreign port in between usually equals Jones Act (US flagged and crewed, usually built, at least keeled) US port to/from foreign port, usually foreign flagged even if it has a US parent company and name. (like most cruise ships) Plenty of foreign ships traverse the St Lawrence, and go through the Welland locks, and on to the midwest. It is where lots of US grain is exported from.


----------



## jis (Aug 26, 2016)

PVD said:


> US port to US port with no foreign port in between usually equals Jones Act (US flagged and crewed, usually built, at least keeled) US port to/from foreign port, usually foreign flagged even if it has a US parent company and name. (like most cruise ships) Plenty of foreign ships traverse the St Lawrence, and go through the Welland locks, and on to the midwest. It is where lots of US grain is exported from.


Exactly!


----------



## jis (Aug 26, 2016)

MARC Rider said:


> Does it mean that the SS Badger, once it sails into "international waters" off Manitowoc and Ludington can open a gambling casino (without Indian help) and sell booze to 18 year olds?


Don't know about selling booze to 18 years olds, but gambling Casinos apparently operate on boats in the Great Lakes already, under Indiana Law as it turns out 

http://traveltips.usatoday.com/riverboat-casinos-lake-michigan-103595.html

Actually I have no idea what maritime laws apply in the Great Lakes since the entire lot is a special case, and the 12 mile thing does not apply, or well, perhaps applies in some strange way buried in some paragraph of some regulation.


----------



## ToniCounter (Aug 26, 2016)

jis said:


> Don't know about selling booze to 18 years olds, but gambling Casinos apparently operate on boats in the Great Lakes already, under Indiana Law as it turns out
> 
> http://traveltips.usatoday.com/riverboat-casinos-lake-michigan-103595.html
> 
> Actually I have no idea what maritime laws apply in the Great Lakes since the entire lot is a special case, and the 12 mile thing does not apply, or well, perhaps applies in some strange way buried in some paragraph of some regulation.


wait... maritime laws?  this thread has gone so far astray from Amtrak 

next we'll shift into discussion about UN Outer Space Treaty (which the

United States ratified 50 years ago, just before the creation of Amtrak)


----------



## jis (Aug 26, 2016)

ToniCounter said:


> wait... maritime laws?  this thread has gone so far astray from Amtrak
> 
> next we'll shift into discussion about UN Outer Space Treaty (which the
> 
> United States ratified 50 years ago, just before the creation of Amtrak)


So with only 170 posts now you think you should be moderator too?


----------



## AFS1970 (Aug 26, 2016)

On my trip to Canada a couple of years ago, there was the usual customs stop in Niagara Falls. Since I was getting off there I really only dealt with the Canadian agents. They were very nice and pleasant. There were only a few of us, so they were certainly not overworked at that time.

On the way back we had to get off the train, sit in a very small room with not enough chairs, while the US agents searched the train. I have no idea if it was a routine search or something special but they were assisted by a K9 unit from the local Sheriff's office. I can tell that by the agency and the breed of the dog they were not looking for contraband fruits and vegetables. They did come and get a family that had been in certain seats and have them identify their luggage based on the K( search. That family did not get back on the train with us. I was more upset with the passengers than the CBP agents for the delay.

However that was just one more hiccup between Via Rail & Amtrak that almost made me swear off of train travel. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed.


----------



## ToniCounter (Aug 26, 2016)

jis said:


> So with only 170 posts now you think you should be moderator too?


Absolutely NOT. I'll make the worst moderator in the history of the internet.

My censorship will be so harsh, even Stalin or Hitler would have been scared.


----------



## PVD (Aug 26, 2016)

Border crossing searches are done by what used to be Customs and sometimes you see the Dept of Agriculture beagles. (pretty common at JFK Airport). What comes up from time to time, and is what really created this thread, is the Border Patrol folks coming on to trains in places not near what anyone other than a Justice Dept attorney would ever call a border, going on fishing expeditions. Honestly, controlling the borders makes sense, but I'm not so sure about walking through a train at Syracuse asking people what country they were from served any legit purpose. When officers of various agencies act on real intel and take appropriate measures, I think most people are supportive, when they do the smoke and mirrors make people feel safe show, or lets look like we have a purpose to exist, or play the civil forfeiture game, there are plenty of people who strongly oppose that.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 26, 2016)

That because Border Patrol does not use the map from the ACLU. Inland river, inland ports, free trade zone, are all used to define the 100 mile rule. Very little of the country is off limits to them. That is there interpretation of a judge restrictions to 100 miles.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Aug 26, 2016)

ToniCounter said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know about selling booze to 18 years olds, but gambling Casinos apparently operate on boats in the Great Lakes already, under Indiana Law as it turns out
> ...



Oooooo. You stepped into it now, ToniCounter! (scroll down)







I DON'T apologize for this! Someone had to do it!


----------



## ToniCounter (Aug 27, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Oooooo. You stepped into it now, ToniCounter! (scroll down)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see a picture placeholder, but no picture? 

Edit: I see it now... had to change the link of the picture from https://

to http:// in order for it to come up.

What kind of lame 2*2*nd century starship are you operating there?

Search my bags? Shouldn't your transporter's biofilter already

gone through every molecule of my body and belongings? 

The next time you're near sector 001, have your chief engineer

contact Starfleet Command and request a replacement updated

transporter.


----------



## jis (Aug 27, 2016)

As Scotty would say " That bucket of bolts .... "


----------



## ToniCounter (Aug 27, 2016)

jis said:


> As Scotty would say " That bucket of bolts .... "


wait... you mean starships or Amtrak's aging trains from the last century?


----------



## jis (Aug 27, 2016)

Both


----------



## jis (Aug 27, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> That because Border Patrol does not use the map from the ACLU. Inland river, inland ports, free trade zone, are all used to define the 100 mile rule. Very little of the country is off limits to them. That is there interpretation of a judge restrictions to 100 miles.


Can you provide a citation in support of that? I scouted around various pronouncements fromDHS and could not find anything suggesting that is their interpretation. Not saying that it isn't, but would like to see some supporting policy documentation if they exist.


----------



## ToniCounter (Aug 27, 2016)

jis said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > That because Border Patrol does not use the map from the ACLU. Inland river, inland ports, free trade zone, are all used to define the 100 mile rule. Very little of the country is off limits to them. That is there interpretation of a judge restrictions to 100 miles.
> ...


If you go through a DHS checkpoint on a California highway about 40 miles from the Mexican border, the nice Border Patrol agent will provide a 3" x 5" pamphlet describing their authority granted by the courts. I'll try to dig up my copy from the basement.... hopefully.


----------



## jis (Aug 27, 2016)

ToniCounter said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Just-Thinking-51 said:
> ...


Thank you but that is not what I am looking for. I am looking for their policy statement as it applies to extended border areas surrounding inland ports. I know their policy regarding immediate vicinity of airports, like say Denver International Airport. But I am wondering whether they have a written policy regarding applying the 100 mile rule in places like DIA, that applies from actual borders. They already have the authority 40 miles from an actual border though with somewhat more stringent application of the 4th amendments. I have got reams of documentation and court cases on that.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 28, 2016)

jis said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > That because Border Patrol does not use the map from the ACLU. Inland river, inland ports, free trade zone, are all used to define the 100 mile rule. Very little of the country is off limits to them. That is there interpretation of a judge restrictions to 100 miles.
> ...


No I can not. Point of fact, I have not seen them away from the Mexican line in years. However I also have not deliver in or around inland ports, and free trade zones in years. It was pretty common years ago to see them everywhere.

I stIll see there green and white vehicles ever once in a while, but not like before. I do recall the statement I made was base on something I read, also there was court case in New York about the area that the Border Patrol were allowed to "fish".


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2016)

Thanks. I am still continuing my hunt for policy documents from DHS if there is one. The to and fro that has been going on this matter between the DHS and the courts is fascinating.AFAICT Chertoff started a lot of this nonsense under the cover of 9/11. A lot of the original excesses were curbed by various court decisions. But for a random citizen just trying to travel in peace it still remains a bit of a hard to predict minefield as far as I can tell. So I just carry my GOES Global Entry Card which has citizenship information on it and is issued by the DHS (well actually one of its subsidiaries).


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 29, 2016)

Good call. Same here, even with the warning on the card sleeve "not to carry it" (why have it?) LOL


----------



## PVD (Aug 29, 2016)

Many people still believe that an American citizen, not under suspicion of any illegal activity, not performing any act that requires registration/permission like driving, and not having left and seeks to re-enter the country should not have to prove it.


----------



## jis (Aug 29, 2016)

PVD said:


> Many people still believe that an American citizen, not under suspicion of any illegal activity, not performing any act that requires registration/permission like driving, and not having left and seeks to re-enter the country should not have to prove it.


The rules are very clear that in an encounter under the extended border engagement rules there must be probable cause. However, in an actual encounter in the field it is anyone's guess what might happen. Best to be armed with documentation, and argue probable cause or not later.

I would rather be safe and be able to continue with my trip, than sorry with a ruined trip. When there is significant evidence of questionable supervision and ideological witch hunting, one has to just work around it. It is not anywhere like as bad as in Russia, not even by a very very long shot, but it is the same idea and same approach to keep out of trouble.

Of course, once the wall is built all these troubles will go away since the whole problem of illegal immigrants would simply go away, Right!


----------



## PVD (Aug 29, 2016)

When we don't have people from other countries to hate, we can go back to traditional American values of hating each other.


----------



## FriskyFL (Aug 29, 2016)

If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## jis (Aug 29, 2016)

FriskyFL said:


> If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.


I guess you have not been in a situation where you had plenty to worry about even when you had done nothing wrong.  Some of us have been there and done that


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 29, 2016)

jis said:


> FriskyFL said:
> 
> 
> > If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
> ...


Amen! As the old saying goes, "Ignorance is Bliss!"


----------



## FriskyFL (Aug 29, 2016)

jis said:


> FriskyFL said:
> 
> 
> > If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
> ...


"Omelettes are not made without breaking eggs." -- Robespierre, mastermind of the French Reign of Terror


----------



## jis (Aug 29, 2016)

FriskyFL said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > FriskyFL said:
> ...


And your point is exactly what?


----------



## FriskyFL (Aug 29, 2016)

jis said:


> FriskyFL said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Plenty of "real Americans" are more than willing to trade my freedom for their safety.


----------



## jis (Aug 29, 2016)

Sorry, I am afraid you have to provide more context if you expect dumb a**es like me me to understand your point. You are clearly more intelligent than I am and you are sounding like Yoda. 

So come on.... please spill it and spell it out. Won't you?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 29, 2016)

Frisky: This would be OK if the "Security Theater" we now have from HLS at the Cost of Multiple Billions of Dollars was really making us Safe!

Benjamin Franklin still has the best take on this, you can look it up!


----------



## ToniCounter (Aug 29, 2016)

Bob Dylan said:


> Frisky: This would be OK if the "Security Theater" we now have from HLS at the Cost of Multiple Billions of Dollars was really making us Safe!
> 
> Benjamin Franklin still has the best take on this, you can look it up!


I have several Swiss friends who argue that Switzerland no longer needs a military. They say there is no point in spending billions of Swiss francs per year to maintain a military that does absolutely nothing to improve the security of Switzerland as a nation.

I'm just bringing that up to show that even the Swiss can complain about stuff.


----------



## jis (Feb 21, 2017)

Beware, the 100 mile limit just went bye bye ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/us/politics/dhs-immigration-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1



> The policy also calls for an expansion of expedited removals, allowing Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to deport more people immediately. Under the Obama administration, *expedited removal was used only within 100 miles of the border for people who had been in the country no more than 14 days. Now it will include those who have been in the country for up to two years, and located anywhere in the nation*.


It might just be prudent to carry your Enhanced Drivers License, Passport Card or the GOES Trusted Traveler Card if you are a citizen and additionally your Green Card if you are a a non-citizen legal resident.

If you are a non-resident alien, best to have your I-94 or I-94W handy together with your Passport.

It is also true that in the past implicit profiling has taken place, so take that into account before deciding what to carry or not.

Reasonable precautions may save you a lot of time and prevent the total ruin of your vacation or business trip.


----------



## A Voice (Feb 21, 2017)

jis said:


> It might just be prudent to carry your Enhanced Drivers License, Passport Card or the GOES Trusted Traveler Card if you are a citizen and additionally your Green Card if you are a a non-citizen legal resident.


Am I missing something here? I don't have any of those things, and have no idea why an American citizen would want to carry them.

We're just talking about enforcing existing laws against persons who are in this country illegally, which certain (previous) elected officials notoriously failed to do.


----------



## Eric S (Feb 21, 2017)

A Voice said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > It might just be prudent to carry your Enhanced Drivers License, Passport Card or the GOES Trusted Traveler Card if you are a citizen and additionally your Green Card if you are a a non-citizen legal resident.
> ...


It's inevitable that some citizens and legal residents will have their IDs checked. And it's probable that some citizens and legal residents will be detained until their identity and status is determined. So, no, it doesn't just undocumented persons.

I'd imagine that Jis is suggesting measures that would help to avoid such problems.


----------



## jis (Feb 21, 2017)

I have been an American citizen for over 25 years now, and have always carried at least one, and it has come in handy once or twice.

Certain pigmentation of the skin makes certain groups of people more prone to getting stuck in a dragnet than some others. If you don't feel there is a problem for you I am all for you not carrying any such documentation. But don't presume that your situation applies to everyone else.



Eric S said:


> It's inevitable that some citizens and legal residents will have their IDs checked. And it's probable that some citizens and legal residents will be detained until their identity and status is determined. So, no, it doesn't just undocumented persons.
> 
> I'd imagine that Jis is suggesting measures that would help to avoid such problems.


Exactly!. It still is a free country and everyone has the freedom to carry any documentation or not of course.

All that I said is it might be prudent, having had some personal experiences on the LSL in the past. Not compulsory at all.


----------



## BCL (Feb 21, 2017)

jis said:


> Beware, the 100 mile limit just went bye bye ...
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/us/politics/dhs-immigration-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
> 
> ...


Adult green card holders are actually required by law to carry their green cards at all times. I don't know exactly what that means, like if someone is at the beach or maybe swimming. I heard that enforcement is pretty much nonexistent.

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-8289.html

e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

This was in the news when Arizona passed a law that made it a state offense for a green card holder to not carry one at all times. I suppose under the federal law, local law enforcement could arrest, but it would be up to the feds to decide to prosecute. The law (since mostly rescinded by a federal court) made it a state crime that could be prosecuted by the state, and it set a higher level of penalties of up to six months in jail.

Frankly - I understand the whole idea that a US citizen is never required to carry ID for simply being on the street, but I've heard of many getting harassed when they couldn't prove it. It's one thing to insist on one's rights, but another to see what happens in the real world.


----------



## jis (Feb 21, 2017)

Yeah, I used to carry my Green Card in my wallet over the 5.5 year period when I had a Green Card, and knew that it was a legal requirement even back then - circa late1980's and early '90s. I naturalized in 1991, and am currently on my third US Passport.

But when I was a student (F1) or H1, I did not carry my I-94 in my pocket. That has become necessary of late I am told. Naturally, I have no personal experience of being a non-citizen for over 25 years now.


----------



## PerRock (Feb 21, 2017)

jis said:


> Beware, the 100 mile limit just went bye bye ...
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/us/politics/dhs-immigration-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
> 
> ...


That's not the same activity for the 100-mile zone. The new directives allow CBP & ICE to get you out of the country faster if you are found anywhere in the country, whereas before the faster-deportation was only done if you were caught within the 100-mile zone. CBP is still has it's stop-searches restricted to the 100-mile zone; so it's more of a thing for ICE.

In fact CBP & ICE could always expedite deportation from anywhere in the US, they just were told to prioritize people in the zone.

peter


----------



## jis (Feb 21, 2017)

Thanks for the clarification. I suspect the more vigorous enforcement may have an effect anywhere in the country, and could previously too, if there were such. We'll just have to see how this develops. meanwhile just do whatever makes you feel the most comfortable and safe.

Personally I will be ignoring advice that says it is OK to travel around with no documentation handy, since I know from experience that is a bad idea.


----------



## neroden (Feb 21, 2017)

It should be safe to travel with no papers, because it is *constitutionally protected*, but for decades it hasn't been safe to do so. My backup in case my papers get stolen or go missing is memorizing the phone number of a trustworthy and well-resourced family member, or of my lawyer.


----------



## PVD (Feb 21, 2017)

I usually take the LSL once a year to connect in Chicago and Empire Service a few times a year to Syracuse (or beyond), it has been at least a few years since I've seen them on the train.


----------



## jis (Feb 21, 2017)

Obama actually discontinued that practice a few years back. That is now in the process of being reversed in principle. We don't know yet how the details of that change in policy will work out viz-a-viz Amtrak. At present in some states schools appear to be the primary target. AFAIK, Amtrak trains have not been targeted yet.

My last experience was on the Empire Builder couple, or three years back in Havre MT. In that event I was not accosted, but several others were. Just verified. It was 2013, so four years back.


----------



## caravanman (Feb 21, 2017)

Thankfully we Brits can still buy a train ticket without ID, and travel around without the need for any ID. Probably we will need a passport to visit Scotland soon though, post brexit !

Land of the free, or a police state ?

Ed.


----------



## PVD (Feb 21, 2017)

If the CBP-BP crew actually go back to securing borders and don't go on fishing expeditions looking for drug seizures and civil asset forfeiture targets,we might not see them again. ICE agents (formerly INS) might pop up more often, but they operate under different legal guidelines.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 21, 2017)

"Papers please!"

Chilling words heard in all Dictatorships!

I always carry my Passport when traveling, even in tbe US and like jis, it has come in handy more than once!( I am a 73 year old Native born White guy with a Texas,accent!)

I've seen alot of people that aren't white hassled by LE types in this country, especislly in rural areas!(Trump Country!)


----------



## PVD (Feb 21, 2017)

Because I am in NY, and it offers optional enhanced drivers license acceptable for land/sea border crossing, (funny that they actually have this, our regular DL is not up to fed standards, and if we don't upgrade it, the regular NY DL will not be acceptable at the airport in another few years) I really don't even think about it because I always have it in my wallet.. It is available only to a US citizen and NY resident and replaces your regular DL. Very convenient for quick beer runs into Canada when at a hockey meeting or symposium.


----------



## jis (Feb 21, 2017)

Bob Dylan said:


> "Papers please!"
> 
> Chilling words heard in all Dictatorships!


Actually the first time I was asked for my papers outside of an official customs and immigration or an international flight airline boarding gate setting was at the Porte de Clingancourt Metro station in Paris. France has not been a dictatorship in my entire lifetime as far as I know.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 21, 2017)

I get your point jis, but the French have been known to be as big a jerks as others when it comes to LE practices and abuse of power!(Especially to Americans!)


----------



## Carolina Special (Feb 21, 2017)

Birth certificate or social security card is required for starting a new job for US citizens, along with another form of ID like a drivers license. I regard that as asking for my "papers".

Even had to do that when my employer was acquired last year and every time at a temp job I did for a week each year for several years, even though the prior certifications should have been on file.

Not an effective system, based on the results.


----------



## PVD (Feb 21, 2017)

That is not entirely accurate. A US Passport is proof of both identity and residence. The SS card is more important for non citizens because when banking id regs tightened, you could have a bank account (ss # reqd) but not be legally permitted to work. That is now printed (not valid for employment) on SS cards for people in that category. That is a non issue for a citizen. Everyone employed still has to execute a w-4 with aSS # for tax purposes anyway.

Reference for the above is the instruction set for the Form I-9

Sometimes employers take the easy way out, and require things they don't need to , or aren't legally allowed to. The feds specify which forms of id are acceptable, an employer can't legally decline to accept a particular category of ID. Chances are they didn't need you to keep filling out new forms, but some companies write and follow policy and procedure manuals in a defensive mode. (if we ask everyone who walks in the door to do this, we can't screw up and assume it is already done)


----------



## BCL (Feb 21, 2017)

Carolina Special said:


> Birth certificate or social security card is required for starting a new job for US citizens, along with another form of ID like a drivers license. I regard that as asking for my "papers".
> 
> Even had to do that when my employer was acquired last year and every time at a temp job I did for a week each year for several years, even though the prior certifications should have been on file.
> 
> Not an effective system, based on the results.


Where'd you hear that? What does a naturalized US citizen do?

The requirement is spelled out in the I-9 instructions. A birth certificate is only one possibility. I've personally done it with a SSN card and driver license, a US passport alone, and a US passport card alone. There are multiple options, and an employer can't insist on any particular form of proof. This was from an older version, but it's still basically the same as the current instructions:







Here's the latest instructions. It's not as nicely laid out as the older one, but it does still specify that an employer can't decide that they'll accept one form but not another that's acceptable.

https://www.uscis.gov/system/files_force/files/form/i-9instr.pdf

*Anti-Discrimination Notice.* It is illegal to discriminate against work-authorized individuals in hiring, firing, recruitment or referral for a fee, or in the employment eligibility verification (Form I-9 and E-Verify) process based on that individual's citizenship status, immigration status or national origin. Employers CANNOT specify which document(s) the employee may present to establish employment authorization and identity. The employer must allow the employee to choose the documents to be presented from the Lists of Acceptable Documents, found on the last page of Form I-9. The refusal to hire or continue to employ an individual because the documentation presented has a future expiration date may also constitute illegal discrimination.

The list doesn't specifically mention the Certificate of Citizenship or naturalization certificate, but they have this that says it's a document that conforms to list C, #8 as a "Employment authorization document issued by the Department of Homeland Security".

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable-documents/list-documents/form-i-9-acceptable-documents?topic_id=1&t=c


----------



## BCL (Feb 22, 2017)

PVD said:


> Sometimes employers take the easy way out, and require things they don't need to , or aren't legally allowed to. The feds specify which forms of id are acceptable, an employer can't legally decline to accept a particular category of ID. Chances are they didn't need you to keep filling out new forms, but some companies write and follow policy and procedure manuals in a defensive mode. (if we ask everyone who walks in the door to do this, we can't screw up and assume it is already done)


I can understand making up rules that are against the law. Heck - I've been told to sign a noncompete agreement, even though it's not enforceable in California.

I've never had an issue with different forms of ID. One time was for a contract job where the legal employer was across the country. They actually had a local office, but I never went there and I don't think they had any HR there. They wanted me to fill out an I-9 and have a notary serve as a representative for verifying the document. Seems strange though, since it looks like California notaries aren't allowed to do that any more unless they're a licensed and bonded "immigration consultant".

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/i-9-central-questions-answers/faq/i-hire-my-employees-remotely-how-do-i-complete-form-i-9

https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/californias-special-restrictions-who-may-complete-form-i-9


----------



## PVD (Feb 22, 2017)

Can I use a Certificate of Naturalization for an I 9?










USCIS. Yes. The *Certificate of Naturalization* (Form N-550 or N-570) is an acceptable List C, #8 employment authorization document issued by the Department of Homeland Security. These documents were previously issued by the Immigration and *Naturalization* Service.










I hire my employees remotely. How do I complete Form I-9?Expand
You may designate an authorized representative to fill out Forms I-9 on behalf of your company, including personnel officers, foremen, agents or notary public. The Department of Homeland Security does not require the authorized representative to have specific agreements or other documentation for Form I-9 purposes. If an authorized representative fills out Form I-9 on your behalf, you are still liable for any violations in connection with the form or the verification process.

When completing Form I-9, you or authorized representative must physically examine each document presented to determine if it reasonably appears to be genuine and relates to the employee presenting it. Reviewing or examining documents via webcam is not permissible.

If the authorized representative refuses to complete Form I-9 (including providing a signature) another authorized representative may be selected. DHS does not require the authorized representative to have specific agreements or other documentation for Form I-9 purposes. If you hire a notary public, the notary public is acting as an authorized representative of you, not as a notary. The notary public must perform the same required actions as an authorized representative. When acting as an authorized representative, the notary public should not provide a notary seal on Form I-9.


----------



## BCL (Feb 22, 2017)

PVD said:


> Can I use a Certificate of Naturalization for an I 9?
> 
> 
> USCIS. Yes. The *Certificate of Naturalization* (Form N-550 or N-570) is an acceptable List C, #8 employment authorization document issued by the Department of Homeland Security. These documents were previously issued by the Immigration and *Naturalization* Service.
> ...


Yeah - I did that about six years ago. However, not all notaries were comfortable doing it. We have a fairly high $10 max notary fee (which just about every one charges) in California - compared to as little as $2 in other states. I was charged $10 for notarizing a copy of my passport card and another $10 for filling out the I-9. They've received notice from the Secretary of State that under California law, only an attorney, US DoJ accredited representative, or licensed/bonded immigration consultant is allowed to fill an I-9 for a client. And an immigration consultant can't advertise that they're a notary. I don't think it prevents an in-person HR representative from doing so.

http://notary.cdn.sos.ca.gov/forms/notary-newsletter-2017.pdf

A notary public may notarize the signature on a document affecting the immigration or citizenship status of any person; however, under current law, a notary public who is not also an immigration consultant cannot do the verification tasks in connection with completing immigration forms because this activity is prohibited by the broad language of California Government Code section 8223. Only an attorney, a representative accredited by the U.S. Department of Justice, or a person who is registered by the California Secretary of State and bonded as an immigration consultant under the California Business and Professions Code section 22441 may assist a client in completing immigration forms. Additional information concerning immigration consultants, including the offering of non-legal assistance or advice on immigration matters, the qualifications to act as an immigration consultant and the requirements of an immigration consultant can be found in California Business and Professions Code section 22440 et seq.

The I-9 Federal Employment Verication Form is an immigration document in that it covers both citizens and noncitizens and also requires the employer or employer’s authorized representative to record and verify data. The duties of an immigration consultant cover these tasks too. Even if a notary public is functioning in a non-notarial capacity and does not use the phrase “notary public,” a notary public who is not also an immigration consultant is prohibited from completing the I-9 Federal Employment Verification Form.

A notary public acting only in the capacity of a notary public may notarize the signature(s) on the I-9 Federal Employment Verification Form. Unless a notary public also is qualified and bonded as an immigration consultant, a notary public cannot enter data provided by a customer on an immigration form, cannot sign the verification of that data, and cannot otherwise provide the services of an immigration consultant. There are special rules that apply to notaries public who are also immigration consultants, and those who advertise their services in a language other than English. A notary public is barred from advertising in any manner whatsoever that he or she is a notary public if the notary public also promotes himself or herself as an immigration specialist or consultant. (California Government Code section 8223.)


----------



## PVD (Feb 22, 2017)

Somewhere, back in history, something happened that triggered those rules. California has a very high volume of forms because of seasonal farm labor, and I'm sure scams and ripoffs probably were a problem at some point. The feds don't have a problem with a company hiring someone to do their verification, the person can be a notary, but he is not acting in that capacity. The employer is still on the hook if it isn't done correctly.


----------



## jis (Feb 22, 2017)

Digging all the way back to 1982 when I was hired (not involving divestitures/mergers/acquisition). what I used was my foreign Passport and I-94 with F1 Training Authorization stamped on it). All the associated forms were part of a thick wad of forms that were sent to me to fill and return. On the day I reported they inspected the Passport and I-94 before issuing me a company badge. All this took place in the iconic Ero Saarinen architected Holmdel Building of the Bell Laboratories in 1982.


----------



## BCL (Feb 22, 2017)

jis said:


> Digging all the way back to 1982 when I was hired (not involving divestitures/mergers/acquisition). what I used was my foreign Passport and I-94 with F1 Training Authorization stamped on it). All the associated forms were part of a thick wad of forms that were sent to me to fill and return. On the day I reported they inspected the Passport and I-94 before issuing me a company badge. All this took place in the iconic Ero Saarinen architected Holmdel Building of the Bell Laboratories in 1982.


That was before the I-9 though. Before the I-9 there was no requirement for an eligibility check, but many employers did it anyways.



PVD said:


> Somewhere, back in history, something happened that triggered those rules. California has a very high volume of forms because of seasonal farm labor, and I'm sure scams and ripoffs probably were a problem at some point. The feds don't have a problem with a company hiring someone to do their verification, the person can be a notary, but he is not acting in that capacity. The employer is still on the hook if it isn't done correctly.


We've had people advertising that they were "notario" which means something very specialized in Spanish. Such people are one step below practicing attorneys and are trained in the law. Notaries in the US of course are authorized to witness signatures and check documents, although I've heard of a few states where they can also conduct weddings.


----------



## zephyr17 (Feb 22, 2017)

PVD said:


> That is not entirely accurate. A US Passport is proof of both identity and residence. The SS card is more important for non citizens because when banking id regs tightened, you could have a bank account (ss # reqd) but not be legally permitted to work. That is now printed (not valid for employment) on SS cards for people in that category. That is a non issue for a citizen. Everyone employed still has to execute a w-4 with aSS # for tax purposes anyway.
> 
> Reference for the above is the instruction set for the Form I-9
> 
> Sometimes employers take the easy way out, and require things they don't need to , or aren't legally allowed to. The feds specify which forms of id are acceptable, an employer can't legally decline to accept a particular category of ID. Chances are they didn't need you to keep filling out new forms, but some companies write and follow policy and procedure manuals in a defensive mode. (if we ask everyone who walks in the door to do this, we can't screw up and assume it is already done)


Correction, a US Passport is proof of identity and citizenship. It is not proof of residence.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 22, 2017)

Actually one of the most irritating to me ID abuses I can think of is various places requiring a Drivers Liscense or Non Drivers ID in place of other government issued Id such as a passport card. This is ridiculous and discriminatory, because it requires non-drivers (a highly discriminated second class of citizen) to identify themselves as such.

My wife doesn't drive, and usually gets by with a passport card, but sometimes it's an issue.

I don't like giving up my rights, but I have no wish to be a martyr about it. I am under no illusions about this being a free country. 9-11 removed most of the remaining vestiges of freedom, but the United States has never been a free country. Was McCarthyism freedom? The detainment of asians during WW2? I can't be a communist freely if I so choose? I can't, to this very day, be an observant Jew and operate a large variety of businesses in Paramus, NJ on the weekend.

I gave up trying to save the world years ago- the world has me out numbered. So I don't want to give up my freedom, and to extent that I have it I do not wish to lose it. Which means I politely show my identification to law enforcement officials, and act in the manner that will most quickly get them to dismiss me. Because that's the only freedom you've got, and the only freedom you are ever going to get in this country- or almost any other. And I use almost just to cover the possibility of some country somewhere where freedom actually exists in the manner Americans delude themselves into thinking they have. If there is one, I haven't found it.


----------



## jis (Feb 22, 2017)

At least in Florida I had to provide a telephone or electricity bill, or a property tax assessment (or for rental, a lease) to prove residence for the Motor Vehicle Department. So yup. Passport is only good for identity and citizenship

Oddly, for Driver's License proving citizenship using a Passport was sufficient, but to get the Homestead Rebate on property taxes they insisted on the Naturalization Certificate. Go figure.

And then the Social Security Office said that a Passport works better than a Naturalization Certificate to establish citizenship, since their electronic link to DHS does not work that well. Facepalm!

Moral of the story ... have every possible document available. you never know which will or will not work where for what purpose!


----------



## PVD (Feb 22, 2017)

The acceptable forms of ID for a drivers' license were changed by most states to be in compliance with federal regs so that they may be used for domestic air travel and entry into certain fed buildings. They have to accept the passport for DL under those rules. Some states offer more than one option, an ID process that does not verify legal presence in the US will result in a DL not meeting the "Real ID" standard, and at some point those DL will no longer be accepted at airports or fed buildings. NY issues non Real ID DL, EDL good for border crossing, and is expected to start offering Real ID compliant DL in a couple of years, but not stop issuing non fed acceptable DL.


----------



## jis (Feb 22, 2017)

PVD said:


> The acceptable forms of ID for a drivers' license were changed by most states to be in compliance with federal regs so that they may be used for domestic air travel and entry into certain fed buildings. They have to accept the passport for DL under those rules.


Yup. They will accept Passport, Passport Card, Naturalization Certificate or Birth Certificate. The original gold standard for citizenship are the Birth or Naturalization Certificates. Passport is a derived documentation, which gets its validity from having been based on a verified Birth or Naturalization Certificate.

Interestingly, once you have a Naturalization Certificate, they use that as the primary proof of your birth date also, and stop asking for the sometimes nonexistent foreign birth certificate.


----------



## PVD (Feb 22, 2017)

Try dealing with birth records from no longer existing countries. I was coaching a team that qualified for State/District championships that had 2 brothers on it brought to the US as infants by their parents fleeing the civil war after the breakup of Yugoslavia. The offices of the government where they used to live was turned into a bomb crater. The normal process of getting a transfer from the IIHF recognized federation of one country to the federation of their new country is severely impeded when the old country no longer exists, and the new replacements aren't recognized yet. There was a way to work our way through the problem, but it was an interesting few weeks.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 22, 2017)

You know, I was wondering about non-Real ID-compliant EDLs (since Washington State is on the list of states getting warnings posted at airports about those IDs not being accepted past next year). If nothing else, and this might just be me, but the idea of an ID being valid to cross the border but not to enter an airport comes off as absurd.


----------



## PVD (Feb 22, 2017)

A border crossing EDL already meets the Real ID test and will be usable anywhere real id is required. It is the other licenses that certain states (like mine) offer that are not Real ID compliant that are in jeopardy of rejection. Real ID verifies legal presence in the US at the time of issuance, You can not have a non Real ID compliant EDL. NY currently issues both non real id compliant DL and EDL. We will be adding real id compliant in a few years, but that will not replace EDL.


----------



## zepherdude (Feb 22, 2017)

They took my seat partner away once in Buffalo. I held up my passport, he had only some card to show. He mumbled a little and was gone in a heartbeat, Never seen again. I was checked in LAX at the gate once.


----------



## jebr (Feb 22, 2017)

Yeah, an enhanced driver's license meets the REAL ID requirement even in states where the standard driver's license does not. We're in a similar situation here in Minnesota, and one solution if you absolutely need a REAL ID is to get an enhanced driver's license for an additional $15/4 years (although you might have to pay the additional $15 if you update your address and need a duplicate DL due to that.) However, the EDL is only offered at a limited number of driver license offices, and they're all only open from 8-9ish AM until 3:45 PM M-F, no weekend or evening hours. Considering there's a lot of other driver's license offices open later and on Saturdays, I doubt I'll re-update mine to an EDL. (I actually had an EDL until I moved and just didn't want to spend the time to update my EDL, so I downconverted to a standard license. My NEXUS card is perfectly fine for any REAL ID needs anyways.)


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 23, 2017)

I just stopped by an interior inspection point that is undergoing a major expansion. Turns out the number one way to avoid being molested for papers is to have the right commercial logo on your fleet vehicle. If you're part of the machine you're golden.


----------



## BCL (Feb 23, 2017)

zephyr17 said:


> PVD said:
> 
> 
> > That is not entirely accurate. A US Passport is proof of both identity and residence. The SS card is more important for non citizens because when banking id regs tightened, you could have a bank account (ss # reqd) but not be legally permitted to work. That is now printed (not valid for employment) on SS cards for people in that category. That is a non issue for a citizen. Everyone employed still has to execute a w-4 with aSS # for tax purposes anyway.
> ...


No passport is considered proof of residence. I've known plenty of expats who had a passport, which proved nothing unless endorsed with an immigrant visa. Even then it's iffy.

However, we had an issue in California over the acceptance of a passport as ID for purchasing alcoholic beverages. The California ABC had an advisory notice that a passport wouldn't meet the legal definition of an ID suitable for purchasing alcohol. The law required that an ID contain a description of the subject such as eye color, height, and weight. Passports typically don't contain this info. Foreign driver licenses generally aren't considered acceptable ID for that purpose either. A lot of international visitors were having difficulties buying alcohol as a result. So the legislature passed a law that specifically allowed for a US or foreign passport to serve as ID for purchasing alcohol.


----------



## jis (Feb 23, 2017)

Interesting article on the subject of detention at the border for inspection issue in the _Washington Post _ today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/13/can-federal-agents-detain-citizens-at-border-checkpoints-until-they-disclose-their-smartphone-passcodes/?utm_term=.6e92a1d52954


----------



## PVD (Feb 23, 2017)

Peoples rights are different when re-entering the country than when traveling within it, and a customs inspection at the border is somewhat different than Border Patrol showing up on a train that doesn't cross the border.


----------



## dlagrua (Feb 23, 2017)

jis said:


> FriskyFL said:
> 
> 
> > If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
> ...


Most law enforcement officers enforce the law while respecting the rights of the innocent. They take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and most keep that Oath but not all. Most are there to protect your rights, but some believe that they ARE the law. Lets not forget the Amtrak policeman that was charged with murdering an unarmed man by shooting him in the back while running. Once, years back I was taking old parts off a friends car in the street to help a friend fix it. Two cops pulled over slammed me up against the car and accused me of stripping the car. I had to go call my friend to come out and straighten things out. Nothing came of it, but had i run I might have been killed. Point is that there is good and bad in every walk of life.


----------

