# border patrol on LSL



## dedhd (Feb 23, 2010)

While heading to the diner on the LSL last Sat morning as I was passing through the coaches (from the Bos Sleepers) there were two border patrol agents asking people if they were American Citizens. This was in Erie at 7am or so. Most of the people in coach looked to be asleep so I thought this rather intrusive, but a dinding companion said he saw someone being ushered off the train. Don't know if this is a common occurance or not, but I did feel a bit safer.


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 23, 2010)

The Border Patrol can question anyone - in any vehicle or even on foot - within 100 miles of the border. The LSL is within 100 miles of the border at that point. (Maybe within 5 miles!)


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Feb 23, 2010)

They did the same thing last week in Rochester on an Empire Service train. I wonder why they are stepping up.


----------



## dlagrua (Feb 23, 2010)

I don't get the point. If someone is aboard is an illegal alien, would they answer the questions by the border patrol honestly? The only thing thst they can ask aboard a domestic train is for some form of identification. You do not have to show proof of US citizenship to ride Amtrak. This situation sounds like someone tried to escape from the border patrol and may have found his way on the LSL.


----------



## RRrich (Feb 23, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> I don't get the point. If someone is aboard is an illegal alien, would they answer the questions by the border patrol honestly? The only thing thst they can ask aboard a domestic train is for some form of identification. You do not have to show proof of US citizenship to ride Amtrak. This situation sounds like someone tried to escape from the border patrol and may have found his way on the LSL.


The ony thing that AMTRAK can ask for is some form of ID, but thes were Border Patrol Officers and I suspect they can ask for more


----------



## jis (Feb 23, 2010)

RRrich said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get the point. If someone is aboard is an illegal alien, would they answer the questions by the border patrol honestly? The only thing thst they can ask aboard a domestic train is for some form of identification. You do not have to show proof of US citizenship to ride Amtrak. This situation sounds like someone tried to escape from the border patrol and may have found his way on the LSL.
> ...


Also, you'd be amazed how much info about you is linked to the forms of Id that are acceptable to Amtrak. The border patrol can pretty much figure out the legitimacy or lack thereof of a person pretty much using the driver's license and a few calls to home base. And once they have reasonable cause for suspicion, all bets are off.


----------



## leemell (Feb 23, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> The Border Patrol can question anyone - in any vehicle or even on foot - within 100 miles of the border. The LSL is within 100 miles of the border at that point. (Maybe within 5 miles!)


Actually, the law says "reasonable distance" which has been interpreted as 100 miles, if a judge was so inclined, he could allow almost any distance.


----------



## leemell (Feb 23, 2010)

jis said:


> RRrich said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


Only two pieces of info are needed to ID almost anyone, your name and your birth-date.


----------



## jis (Feb 23, 2010)

leemell said:


> Only two pieces of info are needed to ID almost anyone, your name and your birth-date.


Yep, and they are available from all acceptable Ids. Of course if it is a foreigner one may or may not be able to get too much more from that. Hence the CAPS system which tries to capture and document more info for anyone that flies into US. I don't know what Canada requires, or Mexico for that matter, for those foreigners that arrive there and then cross land borders into the US, and how much of that info ICE/CBP has access to.


----------



## amamba (Feb 23, 2010)

dedhd said:


> While heading to the diner on the LSL last Sat morning as I was passing through the coaches (from the Bos Sleepers) there were two border patrol agents asking people if they were American Citizens. This was in Erie at 7am or so. Most of the people in coach looked to be asleep so I thought this rather intrusive, but a dinding companion said he saw someone being ushered off the train. Don't know if this is a common occurance or not, but I did feel a bit safer.


You mut be kidding when you said you felt safer. These types of intrusive searches do not make anyone safter. They are the beginning of our steady erosion of civil liberties. How ridiculous to wake people to ask for these types of documents. What is this, communist russia or na** germany? I for one, would not be happy to be woken up to show some border agent my DL and confirm that I was an american citizen. I just think the whole scenario seems ridiculous when the train doesn't even cross the border. I understand the need to check documentation at a border crossing and have no problem with that.


----------



## Ispolkom (Feb 23, 2010)

amamba said:


> You mut be kidding when you said you felt safer. These types of intrusive searches do not make anyone safter. They are the beginning of our steady erosion of civil liberties. How ridiculous to wake people to ask for these types of documents. What is this, communist russia or na** germany? I for one, would not be happy to be woken up to show some border agent my DL and confirm that I was an american citizen. I just think the whole scenario seems ridiculous when the train doesn't even cross the border. I understand the need to check documentation at a border crossing and have no problem with that.


I agree with you except for the comparison to the Soviet Union. I traveled extensively by train in the Soviet Union (mostly in 1990 and 1991) and I was *never* asked to show my papers, except when crossing international borders. I remember at the time thinking it preposterous that the Soviets had rules against photographing train stations and bridges, and never imagined that I'd someday be hassled for doing this in my own country.


----------



## Rumpled (Feb 23, 2010)

California has no law that you must show ID to the police in general. Don't know if a federal law may usurp that or not.

All in all, BP, ICE, TSA all them are totally ineffectual at accomplishing anything other than intruding on our civil liberties.


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 23, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> I don't get the point. If someone is aboard is an illegal alien, would they answer the questions by the border patrol honestly?


Probably not, but it's also the way they answer the question.

If you were asked your citizenship, most likely a US citizen would answer "American" or even "US". I'm not profiling anyone, but if the person answers "United States of America" and has a foreign accent, they _may_ not be a US citizen! Or if they hesitate ("Uh, uh, uh ... American") or seem nervous, they _may_ not be a US citizen or are trying to hide something (such as drugs)! Remember - the BP is not only looking for foreigners! A nervous American may be carrying a load of drugs from NYC to CHI too!

I have nothing to hide, and it does not bother me at all being asked.


----------



## leemell (Feb 23, 2010)

Rumpled said:


> California has no law that you must show ID to the police in general. Don't know if a federal law may usurp that or not.
> All in all, BP, ICE, TSA all them are totally ineffectual at accomplishing anything other than intruding on our civil liberties.


In 2004 the US Supreme Court ruled that you must ID yourself if requested by the police. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/


----------



## Ispolkom (Feb 23, 2010)

leemell said:


> In 2004 the US Supreme Court ruled that you must ID yourself if requested by the police. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/


Huh? To quote from the article you cite: "All nine justices agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality may not be required to state his name or show identification." We have not yet descended to a state where the police can arbitrarily ask for my papers.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 23, 2010)

I have no problem providing ID when picking up tickets, boarding (train/plane/bus)or crossing borders!Also refusing to ID when asked by a cop in Texas (no comments Dave! )is a Felony and you can be arrested! Like all authoritarian organizations (government/the military/churches/schools etc.)police tend to be over zealous, especially after the fact!

I guarantee you are gonna have a real hassle with cops if you take an attitude when they ask for ID and where you are from/going etc. As the song says: "..I'd just as soon answer and then be on my way.." All these terrorists and wanna bes have passports/IDs etc. so the security theater is just for show like most government operations, dog and pony shows are big in all governments!Relax and enjoy the trip!


----------



## AlanB (Feb 23, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> I don't get the point. If someone is aboard is an illegal alien, would they answer the questions by the border patrol honestly? The only thing thst they can ask aboard a domestic train is for some form of identification. You do not have to show proof of US citizenship to ride Amtrak. This situation sounds like someone tried to escape from the border patrol and may have found his way on the LSL.


It's not that someone tried to escape from border patrol; they do this type of inspection almost daily. It's done in part because many people slip over the border in places where there is no check point, then figure that they're home free. It was a lesson learned in California, where many people used to slip over the border and then get into a car. When they setup check points on the roads, they took to the riding the trains. So now they check the trains for people, while still setting up check points from time to time on the roads too. In fact, for many years coming down I-87 from Canada one would find a check point about 50 miles north of Lake George. They finally closed that check point after several bad accidents because people weren't expecting the stopped traffic on an Interstate Highway. Someone wisely decided that killing US citizens wasn’t part of the border patrol’s job. And that’s not a joke; several people were indeed killed in the many accidents.

This doesn't mean that I like what they're doing, just explaining why they do it.

I don't like what they're doing because I object to the idea that 300 US citizens are being delayed in the vague hope that they somehow manage to catch someone who doesn't belong here. If they want to conduct these inspections, then they need to be done in such a manor that doesn't interfere and delay everyone one on the train. That means boarding the agents at one stop and taking them off at the next, or perhaps at some RR crossing further down the road. The right to check for illegals shouldn't interfere with the rights of all those other's on the train to arrive as scheduled at their destinations.

Additionally I don't like this because they are profiling people. They'll tell you that they don't, but it is an absolute fact that they are. And I'm not talking about them targeting people who look foreign, although I suspect that happens too since it is human nature. I'm talking about the fact that it is assumed that if you have enough money to buy a sleeper, that you are obviously not an illegal. I have yet to see them questioning people in the sleepers. That's profiling! :angry:

Mind you, I don't want to start getting bothered in my sleeper, I won't be happy with that either. I'm simply suggesting that the entire process is illegal because they are profiling and it should be stopped for that reason and because they are delaying everyone else.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 23, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get the point. If someone is aboard is an illegal alien, would they answer the questions by the border patrol honestly?
> ...


What you're saying Traveler is also part of the reason for doing it so early in the morning at Erie, PA. They figure that someone just waking up is more likely to make a mistake.

Not to mention that of course the entire process is just more eerie in Erie.


----------



## jmbgeg (Feb 23, 2010)

dedhd said:


> While heading to the diner on the LSL last Sat morning as I was passing through the coaches (from the Bos Sleepers) there were two border patrol agents asking people if they were American Citizens. This was in Erie at 7am or so. Most of the people in coach looked to be asleep so I thought this rather intrusive, but a dinding companion said he saw someone being ushered off the train. Don't know if this is a common occurance or not, but I did feel a bit safer.


At King Street Station in Seattle, there is a new big screen HD television in the seating area with videos on Amtrak security and border crossing requirements. Good information for the public traveling to and from Vancouver B.C. I am sure the arrival of this equipment and video coincides with the onset of the Olympics. PDX could have used the same thing.


----------



## dedhd (Feb 25, 2010)

i too thought it a bit intrusive at first but then thinking about it I DID feel a bit safer knowing that Amtrak/BP was at least making some attempt at on board security. Face it one of the reasons we choose train is because it is low hassle, not too many rules (plus a whole list of other reasons like comfort relaxing etc.). This is also what makes it a pretty easy choice for the criminal element, and frankly a soft target. I am all for the rights of US citizens and do not want the gov to overstep it's bounds, but I also want safety and part of the relaxing journey is knowing that the powers to be are doing their part to keep us safe. I did not see anyone being asked to produce documentation, but then again I was just passing through. Maybe they had a specifac individual in mind I don't know.Don't want to get too political here about rights vs safety, but I don't mind a little scrutiny for the good of the whole.


----------



## jis (Feb 25, 2010)

dedhd said:


> i too thought it a bit intrusive at first but then thinking about it I DID feel a bit safer knowing that Amtrak/BP was at least making some attempt at on board security.


Huh? :unsure: What makes you think CBP doing a sweep of the train to catch illegal immigrants does anything about increasing security on the train. Do you really believe that someone who is trying to sneak into the country and get to wherever they want to go are going to be interested in creating a scene on the train that they are using as the means for transport, or harm anyone on the train per se? That being the case, what exactly are they likely to be securing the train against? A big bomb carrying terrorist perhaps? :lol:


----------



## amamba (Feb 25, 2010)

jis said:


> dedhd said:
> 
> 
> > i too thought it a bit intrusive at first but then thinking about it I DID feel a bit safer knowing that Amtrak/BP was at least making some attempt at on board security.
> ...


I don't see the connection between checking trains for people in this country illegally and safety, either.


----------



## TVRM610 (Feb 25, 2010)

This is nothing new... when i rode the LSL in November of 08 I remember them coming through coach in the morning. I personally had no problem with it, they were polite and courteous about it.


----------



## physdude (Jun 11, 2010)

TVRM610 said:


> This is nothing new... when i rode the LSL in November of 08 I remember them coming through coach in the morning. I personally had no problem with it, they were polite and courteous about it.


Unfortunately, they were not quite as courteous in me and my wife's case. They woke us up rudely in the middle of the night at Rochester, even more rudely stated that both my state ID and university ID were useless documents :angry: , went through a whole series of checks and finally verified I was here legally (though they had to admit their systems still do not properly register changes of immigration status - a real *** moment  ). What I don't understand is why the state ID, for which I had to produce a whole series of documents, is useless for identification, particularly since that is the ostensible purpose for which it is issued. Further, it brings up the question as to why there is no sane ID system here in the 21st century. I have no problem if everyone is supposed to have their papers with them all the time but it has to be done in some sort of sensible manner. It would also help if the officers are somewhat courteous and if the checks are done during daytime.

This is apparently an old issue (see http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/advo...amtrak-1.897012 and http://www.asianweek.com/2000_05_25/news_amtrak.html) though I was unaware of it earlier.

While I liked the Lakeshore with it's glorious views and have taken it several times, this is going to make me think twice about using Amtrak again and it also means that I can't recommend it to anyone. Pity since it is so much more environmentally friendly than air travel.


----------



## the_traveler (Jun 11, 2010)

physdude said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > This is nothing new... when i rode the LSL in November of 08 I remember them coming through coach in the morning. I personally had no problem with it, they were polite and courteous about it.
> ...


I'm sorry they were discourteous to you, but if you said "Rochester" and "middle of the night", unless the LSL was really late, I do not consider about 10 PM to be "the middle of the night". (I'm assuming you went westbound, because eastbound time is mid to late morning.)

Is that a valid reason not to take or recommend Amtrak? :huh: Except for 3 routes (LSL, EB and SL) you should not see BP at all on the trains (except of course the trains that cross the border). Now airports have "Security" check (where they check your ID, check your bags, check your person, etc...) at *EVERY* airport! I for one have had enough with the airport "Security Circus", that last month, I decided to take a train home cross country than to fly cross country! (And I have over 500,000 frequent flyer miles!)

BTW - Welcome!


----------



## GAT (Jun 11, 2010)

If they had asked if I were a US citizen (as the OP said they asked) I would have told them to mind their own business or else ask a question more precise to their purpose. If they had asked if I were in the USA under legal status, I would have been obliged to answer yes or no. If I had answered yes, then they would have had the legal right to ask me to prove it even without their having "just cause," because BP has been given that right. My point is, you don't have to be a citizen to be in this country legally. You can be a Resident Alien (aka Green Card) or here on any one of a number of valid student/visitor/diplomatic/etc. visas PLUS, in the case of those countries on the visitors' visa-free program, no visa.

I get more than a little impatient with politicians gung-ho on restricting immigration throwing around the term "citizen" like it's the only legal way to be in the good ole USA.


----------



## henryj (Jun 11, 2010)

Personally, I wish they would do more checks here in Texas. We are being swamped by a tide of illegals. You might not be complaining so much if you knew what was really going on with our borders(actually....not going on). And with the shooting the other day, now the Mexican government is demanding we turn over the border agent to them. Imagine. The Mexican military actually HELPS the illegals cross rather than hinders them. For a while the illegals were stopping container trains around El Paso and robbing them. Check out some of the video on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUlhYkJVu0Q...eos=9xnlqPOVKsU


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 11, 2010)

> While I liked the Lakeshore with it's glorious views and have taken it several times, this is going to make me think twice about using Amtrak again and it also means that I can't recommend it to anyone. Pity since it is so much more environmentally friendly than air travel.


This was not Amtrak, it was Homeland Security! :angry: If you like the train there's no reason to stop riding it,  as other posters have said try an airport or crossing via land on the Mexican Border! I havent a clue why your valid ID wasnt acceptable to these SS types, one thing this country doesnt need is having to carry papers @ all times and have to present them on demand like its 1930s Germany or Communist Russia!  Everyone that's never been harrased by law enforcement types is SHOCKED!SHOCKED! that a few a**holes hassle them, it doesnt mean all governemnt agents are like thismost are professional and polite in my experience, which is fairly vast!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 11, 2010)

Legally, a police officer needs a warrant to be inside my home without my express permission. Legally, I don't have to state my name without criminal causality. Legally, I can refuse to let a police officer search my car. Legally, a police officer can shove me in jail for no reason whatsoever for a period of 24 hours without me being able to do anything besides pushing through a slow and unlikely argument of unlawful arrest.

Realistically, I haven't committed any notable crime in years. Realistically, my life is easier when I simply tell a police officer my name, birthdate, and so on, when asked. Why would I not want him to know this if I have nothing to hide? That's the question I ask myself... and it very much is the question he, the officer, is asking himself. It has been held up in court that acting in that manner constitutes sufficient grounds for increased scrutiny.

Increased scrutiny does not mean being thrown in jail... but it very well can include being removed from the train for further questioning. In which case I am off the train, waiting around, answering questions, and generally finding myself being miserable.

Cooperating fully with law enforcement officials isn't just the right thing to do... it makes life easier.

Furthermore, taking it out on the officers is like shooting the messenger. Do you really think a police officer wants to be shifting his way through a dimly lit train car in the middle of the night looking for illegal immigrants he knows are most likely not present? Of course not. His boss told him to do so, and he is following orders. When things like that happen, I politely cooperate with the official... and then write off several strongly-worded diatribes to the relevant politicians.


----------



## tp49 (Jun 11, 2010)

physdude said:


> Unfortunately, they were not quite as courteous in me and my wife's case. They woke us up rudely in the middle of the night at Rochester, even more rudely stated that both my state ID and university ID were useless documents :angry: , went through a whole series of checks and finally verified I was here legally (though they had to admit their systems still do not properly register changes of immigration status - a real *** moment  ). What I don't understand is why the state ID, for which I had to produce a whole series of documents, is useless for identification, particularly since that is the ostensible purpose for which it is issued. Further, it brings up the question as to why there is no sane ID system here in the 21st century. I have no problem if everyone is supposed to have their papers with them all the time but it has to be done in some sort of sensible manner. It would also help if the officers are somewhat courteous and if the checks are done during daytime.
> This is apparently an old issue (see http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/advo...amtrak-1.897012 and http://www.asianweek.com/2000_05_25/news_amtrak.html) though I was unaware of it earlier.
> 
> While I liked the Lakeshore with it's glorious views and have taken it several times, this is going to make me think twice about using Amtrak again and it also means that I can't recommend it to anyone. Pity since it is so much more environmentally friendly than air travel.


I can understand why the agent would state that both your state and university ID's were "useless" documents. First the university ID is not a valid form of ID for these purposes as it does not show legal presence in the country.

As for the state ID which I am figuring is either an driver's license or a state DMV issued non-driver identification card is that those documents also do not show legal presence in the US. The reason for that is that these id's can (and routinely are issued to people who do not have legal presence in the US. They're just not accurate for that purpose. Also, just because a state issued ID was valid previously due to legal immigration status doesn't necessarily mean it is so now if a green card or long term visa is expired and the ID holder is still in the country.

I'm helping a friend get citizenship and my friend has a green card. My friend is required to carry that card on their person at all times. Be it a green card, visa (or in the case of VWP countries) the entry stamp in a valid passport are what indicates legal presence in the United States. When I'm traveling in a foreign country I carry my passport with valid entry stamp or visa on me at all times.

I can't write specifically to this poster's immigration status but would caution them just for the future to have their papers on them.


----------



## daveyb99 (Jun 12, 2010)

jimhudson said:


> I have no problem providing ID when picking up tickets, boarding (train/plane/bus)or crossing borders!Also refusing to ID when asked by a cop in Texas (no comments Dave! )is a Felony and you can be arrested! )


Incorrect. TX PC38.02 defines Failure To Identify as an offense only AFTER you have been arrested or if you give a false or fictitious name/DOB if detained. Remaining silent at the detained stage is not an offense.

The only time I know ID is required is if you are driving a car and asked for your license as failure to produce one could get earn you a ticket.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Legally, a police officer needs a warrant to be inside my home without my express permission. Legally, I don't have to state my name without criminal causality. Legally, I can refuse to let a police officer search my car. Legally, a police officer can shove me in jail for no reason whatsoever for a period of 24 hours without me being able to do anything besides pushing through a slow and unlikely argument of unlawful arrest.


Wow, so incorrect.

Officers may enter a home for a variety of reasons without consent; however, in some cases their actions are limited if a warrant is not in place

As mentioned prior, you can remain silent if detained, just can not provide false info - at least in Texas.

Officers can "search" a car without a warrant for many reasons. In fact, in Texas, an "automobile" is a "public place" and you can be arrested out of a car, even if you are a passenger, for things like Public Intoxication and Criminal Trespass, and that can trip a legal search even if the driver/owner says no.

Officers can not 'shove' someone in jail without a probable cause and a sworn affidavit. Maybe a detective can hold someone, or CBP can hold to determine legal status, but otherwise, they best have something to go on or the District Attorney is going to have a fit.


----------



## physdude (Jun 12, 2010)

It is good to know that only some trains are affected by this and it is a pity that Amtrak suffers from something that is not within their control. I might indeed be overreacting since it happened quite recently but it was definitely not nice.

I must admit I don't remember the time at Rochester since I was sleeping but the lights were out and it was after dinner (my wife and I were among the last who finished dining in the dining car). It is indeed possible that it was not all that late but, given that many of the passengers were asleep, it was fairly late in the context of the train journey.

While I don't like the airport checks as well, at least you know what to expect and they are -far- more polite than the border patrol that I encountered (ultimately it is unfortunate that security theater seems to have become an inevitable part of long distance travel). They don't claim that state IDs are useless for ID purposes and ask for a whole bunch of documents which anyone would be pretty insane to carry around without specific reason, particularly since they are not replaceable. More difficult to describe but no less jarring was the overall tone of the BP that I observed with the other passengers as well - either they are unfamiliar with the presumption of innocence or they are on a power trip.

Randomly asking for ID is officially standard, if rare, in other countries I have been to as well but they inevitably have a sane ID system which their officials actually have confidence in. Further, on the couple of occasions this has occurred elsewhere (i.e. in different countries) to me, they have much more polite about it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2010)

physdude said:


> It is good to know that only some trains are affected by this and it is a pity that Amtrak suffers from something that is not within their control. I might indeed be overreacting since it happened quite recently but it was definitely not nice.
> 
> 
> While I don't like the airport checks as well, at least you know what to expect and they are -far- more polite than the border patrol that I encountered (ultimately it is unfortunate that security theater seems to have become an inevitable part of long distance travel). They don't claim that state IDs are useless for ID purposes and ask for a whole bunch of documents which anyone would be pretty insane to carry around without specific reason, particularly since they are not replaceable. More difficult to describe but no less jarring was the overall tone of the BP that I observed with the other passengers as well - either they are unfamiliar with the presumption of innocence or they are on a power trip.


Heard about the new "Law" in Arizona? Bet people riding the Sunset Ltd. and the SWC better take their "papers" with them especially if they look "foreign",

whatever that is??  Glad you realize that it's not Amtrak pulling this Security Theater,  and you should mind being randomly asked for your papers, the basis of our law used to be law enforcement had to have PROBABLE CAUSE to stop/question someone!


----------



## physdude (Jun 12, 2010)

tp49 said:


> physdude said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, they were not quite as courteous in me and my wife's case. They woke us up rudely in the middle of the night at Rochester, even more rudely stated that both my state ID and university ID were useless documents :angry: , went through a whole series of checks and finally verified I was here legally (though they had to admit their systems still do not properly register changes of immigration status - a real *** moment  ). What I don't understand is why the state ID, for which I had to produce a whole series of documents, is useless for identification, particularly since that is the ostensible purpose for which it is issued. Further, it brings up the question as to why there is no sane ID system here in the 21st century. I have no problem if everyone is supposed to have their papers with them all the time but it has to be done in some sort of sensible manner. It would also help if the officers are somewhat courteous and if the checks are done during daytime.
> ...


The main problem with that is some of the documents (like my wife's original I-797) are pretty much impossible to replace. It would be trivial to index the IDs to immigration status so that it can be checked with ease by the agent. In fact, in the end, this is what he did in a convoluted sort of way by calling up somebody with access to a database (which, also, on his own admission, is so badly designed that it does not handle changes of status). Accessing the database directly is transparently and easily done in many other countries. After all, we are in the 21st century and computers and networking are pretty ubiquitous even in the third world. Given what happened, the questioning of the state IDs etc. was apparently just a power trip on the agent's part since he could have got on with his job in the first place by contacting the person with access to the database. I would have had no complaint if that was what was done.


----------



## tp49 (Jun 12, 2010)

physdude said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > physdude said:
> ...


A photocopy of the I-797 should be sufficient. Questioning a state issued ID is not necessarily a power trip on the agent's part because as stated previously there are legitimate reasons for doing so.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jun 12, 2010)

tp49 said:


> physdude said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, they were not quite as courteous in me and my wife's case. They woke us up rudely in the middle of the night at Rochester, even more rudely stated that both my state ID and university ID were useless documents :angry: , went through a whole series of checks and finally verified I was here legally (though they had to admit their systems still do not properly register changes of immigration status - a real *** moment  ). What I don't understand is why the state ID, for which I had to produce a whole series of documents, is useless for identification, particularly since that is the ostensible purpose for which it is issued. Further, it brings up the question as to why there is no sane ID system here in the 21st century. I have no problem if everyone is supposed to have their papers with them all the time but it has to be done in some sort of sensible manner. It would also help if the officers are somewhat courteous and if the checks are done during daytime.
> ...


so sense my DL or SI are useless documents do i need to carry my birth certificate and other documents with me just to proove who i am. IM NOT CROSSING A FREAKING BOARDER I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO CARRY THIS CRAP JUST TO TAKE A FREAKING TRAIN.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 12, 2010)

I still don't understand why the Border Patrol finds it necessary to search trains that don't cross an international border. Are cars/trucks/buses on the New York Thruway stopped and searched?


----------



## rile42 (Jun 12, 2010)

I have been on the LSL several times when the border patrol walks through the train. I remember it happening most of the time at Buffalo. I've been on the Empire Builder a couple of times when it has also happened. I might be wrong but I believe it happened at Minot or Le Havre.

On the EB, I was sitting with a woman from England who for some reason did not have her proper ID with her. I thought the BP acted very professional, made a few calls and verified that she was legal for whatever that meant.

I do agree though that it is kind of stupid to ask what citizenship a person is when going through the cars.


----------



## leemell (Jun 12, 2010)

rile42 said:


> I have been on the LSL several times when the border patrol walks through the train. I remember it happening most of the time at Buffalo. I've been on the Empire Builder a couple of times when it has also happened. I might be wrong but I believe it happened at Minot or Le Havre.On the EB, I was sitting with a woman from England who for some reason did not have her proper ID with her. I thought the BP acted very professional, made a few calls and verified that she was legal for whatever that meant.
> 
> I do agree though that it is kind of stupid to ask what citizenship a person is when going through the cars.


For a real thrill, you should have been on the Deutsche Bahn transit from

Braunschweig in the FRG to Berlin in the early 80's. As the train crossed the border to the DDR, it was searched inside and out from headlights to taillight by Vopos (Volkspolitzei) with submachineguns, DDR Army, and Vopos with dogs. As we traveled through the DDR, the passport agents (clerks with guns and a very bad attitude) worked their way from engine to the end. They slammed the doors open shouted "PASS CONTROLLEN" and demanded "papieren" and payment. NOBODY looked them in the eye and certainly no one talked to them, let alone thought to argue. A true eye opening experience.


----------



## leemell (Jun 12, 2010)

MikefromCrete said:


> I still don't understand why the Border Patrol finds it necessary to search trains that don't cross an international border. Are cars/trucks/buses on the New York Thruway stopped and searched?


Actually the border patrol has for decades had inspections stations at Oceanside (completely covering I5), in the Central Valley, and on the Central Coast of California.


----------



## leemell (Jun 12, 2010)

Guest said:


> physdude said:
> 
> 
> > It is good to know that only some trains are affected by this and it is a pity that Amtrak suffers from something that is not within their control. I might indeed be overreacting since it happened quite recently but it was definitely not nice.
> ...


First, Arizona's law allows for the checking of residence status IF they are stopped for some other offense. Second, this happens to mirror existing Federal code.


----------



## GAT (Jun 12, 2010)

> First, Arizona's law allows for the checking of residence status IF they are stopped for some other offense. Second, this happens to mirror existing Federal code.


I'm sorry, but I don't think it's quite that simple. The Arizona law refers to coming "into lawful contact" with a peace officer or something like that. So, for example, a person who witnesses a traffic accident and gives his account to an officer on the scene can be asked to prove his residency status. That's what makes the law so odious. You don't have to be suspected of an offense; you can be doing your duty as a citizen and still be subjected to the new Arizona law if the peace officer doesn't like your looks, your accent, the clothes you're wearing, or the way you comport yourself in the presence of authority. The possibilities are waaaaaaay beyond what "federal code' will allow.


----------



## leemell (Jun 12, 2010)

George said:


> > First, Arizona's law allows for the checking of residence status IF they are stopped for some other offense. Second, this happens to mirror existing Federal code.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think it's quite that simple. The Arizona law refers to coming "into lawful contact" with a peace officer or something like that. So, for example, a person who witnesses a traffic accident and gives his account to an officer on the scene can be asked to prove his residency status. That's what makes the law so odious. You don't have to be suspected of an offense; you can be doing your duty as a citizen and still be subjected to the new Arizona law if the peace officer doesn't like your looks, your accent, the clothes you're wearing, or the way you comport yourself in the presence of authority. The possibilities are waaaaaaay beyond what "federal code' will allow.



The law reads "to require scrutiny only of people who police stop, detain or arrest", not "lawful contact" and this mirrors Federal Code.


----------



## SoCal Dude (Jun 12, 2010)

dedhd said:


> While heading to the diner on the LSL last Sat morning as I was passing through the coaches (from the Bos Sleepers) there were two border patrol agents asking people if they were American Citizens. This was in Erie at 7am or so. Most of the people in coach looked to be asleep so I thought this rather intrusive, but a dinding companion said he saw someone being ushered off the train. Don't know if this is a common occurance or not, but I did feel a bit safer.


This happened all the time on the old San Diegans, now the Pacific Surfliners, on the Oceanside-San Juan Capistrano segment between LA and San Diego. Border Patrol officers would board in Oceanside and canvass the train. They didn't ask any questions but did detain people who looked as if they were farmworkers --profiling, anyone?

Anyways, this stopped after Amtrak stopped selling tickets for cash without asking for identification. These days, I haven't seen BP officers in years on the Surfliners.


----------



## GAT (Jun 13, 2010)

leemell said:


> George said:
> 
> 
> > > First, Arizona's law allows for the checking of residence status IF they are stopped for some other offense. Second, this happens to mirror existing Federal code.
> ...


I believe you're correct. This is how the original bill was amended a couple of weeks later because of all the furor over the original wording, which I was referring to. I believe the AZ legislators hastily came partially to their senses, so that now the only problem is that the state is taking over what the constitution says is exclusively a federal duty.


----------



## henryj (Jun 13, 2010)

George said:


> so that now the only problem is that the state is taking over what the constitution says is exclusively a federal duty.



Show me where it says that.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8


----------



## daveyb99 (Jun 13, 2010)

henryj said:


> George said:
> 
> 
> > so that now the only problem is that the state is taking over what the constitution says is exclusively a federal duty.
> ...



Line 4 of A1S8 "establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization" That is pretty all encompassing.

The answer is all about jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of your local police department is to enforce State Law, not Federal Law.

Its the difference between Federal Law and State Law. Just like Houston PD can not enforce the city ordinances of Tomball, TX. Not Their Jurisdiction.

A "Voting Rights" violation does not got to the Houston Police Department, it goes to the DOJ.

And until recently, if CBP stopped a drunk driver in Texas, they could do nothing about it because there is not a federal statue on drunk driving, it is a state law.

In addition, the Texas Legislature, specifically had to recognize certain Federal Officers as Special Investigators to allow them to act upon some state laws and be able arrest under Texas Law, including CBP for DWI. Otherwise, they are nothing more than a citizen.

Until the jurisdiction question is resolved, that is the way it is.....


----------



## AlanB (Jun 13, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> Is that a valid reason not to take or recommend Amtrak? :huh: Except for 3 routes (LSL, EB and SL) you should not see BP at all on the trains (except of course the trains that cross the border).


Not true at all. Any train within 100 miles of a US border can be stopped and detained by US Border Patrol agents for inspection at any time. A US border isn't just a land based thing, hence the Silvers for example run within 100 miles of the US border on the ocean and can be stopped for a search. In fact, I can't think of any LD train that doesn't come within 100 miles of a border at some point during its trip.

There are some short haul trains that never get within 100 miles of a border, but no LD's that don't.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 13, 2010)

tp49 said:


> As for the state ID which I am figuring is either an driver's license or a state DMV issued non-driver identification card is that those documents also do not show legal presence in the US. The reason for that is that these id's can (and routinely are issued to people who do not have legal presence in the US. They're just not accurate for that purpose. Also, just because a state issued ID was valid previously due to legal immigration status doesn't necessarily mean it is so now if a green card or long term visa is expired and the ID holder is still in the country.


In general that is correct, but there are several states that now issue special Enhnaced Driver's Licenses that do indeed show legal presence in the US. NY is one of those states and I actually hold that special license. It is legal proof of my citizenship and is valid for all land/water crossings into Canada and Mexico.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 13, 2010)

MikefromCrete said:


> I still don't understand why the Border Patrol finds it necessary to search trains that don't cross an international border.


They do it because people sneak across the border, think that they've made it and are now safe, and then board trains. This was very common on the Pacific Surfliners many years ago until they started random checks. Then the illegals moved to buses, so they started random stops of those.

Or maybe I have it backwards and the buses came first, then the trains. But either way, both were used frequently.



MikefromCrete said:


> Are cars/trucks/buses on the New York Thruway stopped and searched?


I'm not sure about the NY Thruway, but for years there was an inspection point on I-87 just about opposite Lake Placid. After several fatal rear end accidents, that check point was shut down, at least for now. But it wouldn't surprise me to find them making a new one or even reactivating the closed one if they feel it necessary. And there are many other highways that do see check points.


----------



## PerRock (Jun 13, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> Except for 3 routes (LSL, EB and SL) you should not see BP at all on the trains (except of course the trains that cross the border).


I'm pretty sure there are more than 3 that get "within a reasonable distance to the boarder" A good portion of the Wolveriene is withing 100mi of the border (although I have yet to see BP on it...) Even the Blue Water terminates within 100mi of the border.

When I took the EB to pPortland we were questioned by BP. We were traveling with a friend of ours from India and the stoped us and had loads of questions for us, the two officers didn't think that someone on a work visa could go from an office in Boston to visit one in Portland, OR by train. I think we made the train about 15 mins late. Interestingly there was a man in the same car as us on a tourist visa here from Nigeria who that barely even looked at (asked for his papers and nationality and then moved on) Our return trip was uninterrupted by BP (although we did have a "run in" with the local police when out train almost hit a car parked on the tracks.)

peter


----------



## amamba (Jun 14, 2010)

AlanB said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > Are cars/trucks/buses on the New York Thruway stopped and searched?
> ...


There is also a point on I-91 or I-89 in Vermont that is aobut 50 miles south of the border where they do checks of cars and busses. But the vermonters have been complaining mighty heavily about it because they have just stepped it up in recent years and its pretty annoying and also has been known to cause accidents.


----------



## henryj (Jun 14, 2010)

daveyb99 said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > George said:
> ...



That says nothing about enforcing border security or checking so see if a person is a here legally. The States have every right to enforce the law. That particular Section is about nothing more than rules for becoming a citizen. Many states besides Arizona have similar laws passed. They just did not get the publicity. It's all about politics now and the November elections. It has nothing to do with reality.

And, last night the Houston police arrested 4 'coyotes' and a house full of illegals so that dispells your idea that local law enforcement can do nothing. They will turn the illegals over to the ICE.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 16, 2010)

In the past I had seen inspections on the SL down in Del Rio but not this time around. Not a single BP officer in sight. I'm not against the goal of the Arizona law, but the idea that even lawful interaction could result in questioning or detainment and that locals could sue the police for not being trigger happy enough really irked me. As with most truly controversial laws the final outcome has yet to be determined and will probably take years to resolve. Even the legality of the law itself has only begun to be challenged.


----------



## rrdude (Jun 16, 2010)

AlanB said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Is that a valid reason not to take or recommend Amtrak? :huh: Except for 3 routes (LSL, EB and SL) you should not see BP at all on the trains (except of course the trains that cross the border).
> ...


How about the CZ? Cardinal? And maybe the CONO and Southern Crescent? But I guess you are basing the "border" as being the ocean too eh? (which of course it IS) So you are probably right, as usual!


----------



## AlanB (Jun 16, 2010)

rrdude said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > the_traveler said:
> ...


Precisely! The ocean is considered a border by the border patrol, and therefore they can board the Cardinal pretty much anytime they like between NYP & say Manasas.


----------



## Don (Mar 17, 2011)

On March 16 2011 border patrol agents were waiting for Amtrak#350 at the Dearborn Michigan station. I was coming home from Chicago. Upon detraining, the only way off the fenced in platform is down a ramp which was where the border patrol was waiting. They were asking all the passengers just off the train where they were born. My exact reply was "None of your business, what is this, North Korea?" and I walked past them. Two of them followed me all the way to my car shouting "SIR!SIR!" repeatedly. I said nothing. When I got to my car they gave up and walked away. They never touched me, only tried to intimidate me verbally. I got in my car and drove home.


----------



## JeffW (Mar 17, 2011)

This thread is getting quite a bit if discussion, and it seems that anything I needed to add has pretty much been summed up...

I almost always see Border Patrol in Buffalo or soon after on the LSL. They generally range from somewhat civil to borderline intimidating (no pun intended), and I'm honestly surprised that I might be uncomfortable around them, considering that I've held American citizenship all of my life.

I caught this article a few months back... It may or may not add anything to the conversation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/nyregion/30border.html


----------



## JeffW (Mar 17, 2011)

And to lighten the mood a bit...

About a year ago on the LSL, I was riding back home to Rochester. In Buffalo, the Border Patrol entered, asking each person's citizenship. The man a few seats ahead of me heartily shouted in his southern drawl, "TEXAS!" The patrol looked at him for a few seconds, rolled his eyes, and moved on.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Mar 17, 2011)

When I was on the _*LSL*_ last January, the Border Patrol came through in BUF and were very professional and polite. One of the agents even took time to explain to me how they are trained to pick up suspicious voice tones when a person answers the citizenship question.


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Mar 17, 2011)

tp49 said:


> physdude said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, they were not quite as courteous in me and my wife's case. They woke us up rudely in the middle of the night at Rochester, even more rudely stated that both my state ID and university ID were useless documents :angry: , went through a whole series of checks and finally verified I was here legally (though they had to admit their systems still do not properly register changes of immigration status - a real *** moment  ). What I don't understand is why the state ID, for which I had to produce a whole series of documents, is useless for identification, particularly since that is the ostensible purpose for which it is issued. Further, it brings up the question as to why there is no sane ID system here in the 21st century. I have no problem if everyone is supposed to have their papers with them all the time but it has to be done in some sort of sensible manner. It would also help if the officers are somewhat courteous and if the checks are done during daytime.
> ...


As A US born citizen all I have is My state ID (expired permit ( i dont drive ) my USCAP ( civil air patrol ) ID and my ham license ..

your saying this is not good enough ?

they what DO I carry .

Peter KG6LSE ..


----------



## Bierboy (Mar 17, 2011)

Border patrol agents removed a couple from the eastbound Empire Builder this past Sunday in Montana. I think we were in Havre; they waited until the last minute before we left (since it's a longer stop), then four agents escorted them into a truck. Our SCA said they did not have their papers. The couple seemed pleasant as we sat at a diner table across the aisle from them the night before. They had what appeared to be Haitian accents. Our SCA said it's very common for the border patrol to check the EB, especially at Havre since it's only about 35 miles from the Canadian border...


----------



## jis (Mar 17, 2011)

At least directly asking the question about ones citizenship makes way more sense than asking where someone was born. In any case, due to past experiences I always carry papers that can unequivocally establish my citizenship. Seems to avoid a lot of hassle on occasions. Came of use in Porte de Clignancourt in Paris, at Kievskii Voxall in Moscow and at Rochester on the LSL once. Works everywhere in the world and notwithstanding loud proclamations to the contrary by some it can become necessary anywhere in the world, no exceptions.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 18, 2011)

Don said:


> On March 16 2011 border patrol agents were waiting for Amtrak#350 at the Dearborn Michigan station. I was coming home from Chicago. Upon detraining, the only way off the fenced in platform is down a ramp which was where the border patrol was waiting. They were asking all the passengers just off the train where they were born. My exact reply was "None of your business, what is this, North Korea?" and I walked past them. Two of them followed me all the way to my car shouting "SIR!SIR!" repeatedly. I said nothing. When I got to my car they gave up and walked away. They never touched me, only tried to intimidate me verbally. I got in my car and drove home.


Actually, it is their business. And while they chose to do nothing, you were lucky. They could have just as easily detained you and there would have been nothing that you could have done about that. And there is no follow up recourse that you have either, short of complaining to your Congress person.

If you are within 100 miles of a border, then Border Patrol has the legal authority to ask you that question and to detain you if they don't like your answer and you cannot prove citizenship.

I have to wonder if they let you go when they saw the license plates on your car and just figured it wasn't worth the hassle.

But I wouldn't recommend that anyone try this and it wouldn't be wise for you to try it again either. You might not be happy with the results!


----------



## Bierboy (Mar 18, 2011)

it most DEFINITELY is their business...and you were WRONG to act the way you did...


----------



## Spokker (Mar 18, 2011)

Bierboy said:


> it most DEFINITELY is their business...and you were WRONG to act the way you did...


Papers, please.


----------



## Lakeshore (Mar 18, 2011)

We will be on the LSL and EB soon. Is a driver's license sufficient for ID purposes? I would prefer not to bring our passports (we're not crossing the border). Just one more thing to have to keep track of.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 18, 2011)

Generally one isn't even asked to produce ID, just asked if you're a citizen or not. If your answer is no, then you should probably have additional ID with you. Or if for some reason you're liking to invite suspicion, as in possible fitting a sterotype, then bring other ID. Otherwise you probably don't need your passports.

In fact in all of my travels the only time I've ever even been asked a question by border patrol is when I was actually crossing a border.


----------



## jis (Mar 18, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Generally one isn't even asked to produce ID, just asked if you're a citizen or not. If your answer is no, then you should probably have additional ID with you. Or if for some reason you're liking to invite suspicion, as in possible fitting a sterotype, then bring other ID. Otherwise you probably don't need your passports.
> 
> In fact in all of my travels the only time I've ever even been asked a question by border patrol is when I was actually crossing a border.


As long as you are nice white skinned you're OK. But if you are brown skinned, it is prudent to have some additional documentation just in case.


----------



## GAT (Mar 18, 2011)

Lakeshore said:


> We will be on the LSL and EB soon. Is a driver's license sufficient for ID purposes? I would prefer not to bring our passports (we're not crossing the border). Just one more thing to have to keep track of.


If you're not going to cross a border, I would suggest taking your photo state-issued ID along with a photocopy of the picture page of your US passport. (Of course, the names should be identical and the photos be of the same person :giggle: ) I do this whenever I go out in the evening in a foreign country, leaving my passport secure in the hotel.

Now, if you're taking EB to Seattle, you may just want to take a short trip on the Cascades up to my beautiful home town of Vancouver, BC.  If so, you should definitely bring your passport.


----------



## Lakeshore (Mar 18, 2011)

George said:


> Lakeshore said:
> 
> 
> > We will be on the LSL and EB soon. Is a driver's license sufficient for ID purposes? I would prefer not to bring our passports (we're not crossing the border). Just one more thing to have to keep track of.
> ...


We were going to go up to Vancouver originally. I was thinking about running the marathon up there May 1st. My training didn't turn out so well, so we modified the trip slightly. I would like to get up there someday though.


----------



## rrdude (Mar 18, 2011)

Bierboy said:


> it most DEFINITELY is their business...and you were WRONG to act the way you did...


"Ve have vays of making you talk.........."

None of their business, no probable 'cause, F#$ off and die, agents.

I'll gladly take the detention, won't even sue the [email protected]#[email protected], just make THEIR job a bit more miserable......


----------



## GAT (Mar 18, 2011)

Calm down, dude. By the law, they don't need "probable cause" as you understand it. And I would wager that detaining someone with your attitude would actually MAKE their day rather than making it more miserable. Further, you will either have to sue or convince congress if you want to change the law as it now stands. But if you're happy with being detained with no positive results, so be it. :help:


----------



## jis (Mar 18, 2011)

George said:


> Calm down, dude. By the law, they don't need "probable cause" as you understand it. And I would wager that detaining someone with your attitude would actually MAKE their day rather than making it more miserable. Further, you will either have to sue or convince congress if you want to change the law as it now stands. But if you're happy with being detained with no positive results, so be it. :help:


Actually adding one more detention to their achievement would only help the gussy up the statistics to justify more such. On the whole a lose-lose proposition IMHO.


----------



## rrdude (Mar 18, 2011)

George said:


> Calm down, dude. By the law, they don't need "probable cause" as you understand it. And I would wager that detaining someone with your attitude would actually MAKE their day rather than making it more miserable. Further, you will either have to sue or convince congress if you want to change the law as it now stands. But if you're happy with being detained with no positive results, so be it. :help:


Of course you are right, again, George, but I dunno, reading about the shennanigans that these Border Patrol and Homeland Security Agents engage in just *instantly* makes my blood boil, and I go all "Retro-60's" in my mind.........


----------



## GAT (Mar 18, 2011)

To be honest, it pi*%$#esme off too. I often wonder how much of our "brave new world" is due to the horrific happening on 9/11 and how much is due to the declining economy and growing anti-immigrant sentiment in this country AND others around the world (especially Europe). But I remember sitting in my 14th floor hotel room in downtown Houston on 9/11 watching the TV accompanied by a view of airplane after airplane after airplane gliding by on emergency-ordered landing at Houston Hobby, and my co-worker saying to me, "This country is never going to be the same again." How right he was!

Anyway, I digress from railroading....Sorry for the rant.


----------



## math103 (Mar 18, 2011)

Lakeshore said:


> George said:
> 
> 
> > Lakeshore said:
> ...



My girlfriend and i were on the eastbound LSL last friday and they were 6 border patrol agent waiting to climb in the train in Buffalo. Having seen this post before and beeing canadian, i've prepared our passport just in case. The agent just asked our citizienship and didn't check our passport. I was holding them in my hand ready to show them to him but he didn't check them. The only person around us that he asked to show him their ID was a girl from Japan in front of us. He must have asked her 5 or 6 time her citizenship before she answered. Since it was early morning i don't know if she was still sleeping.


----------



## Bierboy (Mar 18, 2011)

jis said:


> ...As long as you are nice white skinned you're OK. But if you are brown skinned, it is prudent to have some additional documentation just in case.


If you weren't kidding with that statement...that's just a sad, racist, stereotypical viewpoint...


----------



## Bierboy (Mar 18, 2011)

rrdude said:


> ...Of course you are right, again, George, but I dunno, reading about the shennanigans that these Border Patrol and Homeland Security Agents engage in just *instantly* makes my blood boil, and I go all "Retro-60's" in my mind.........


"shenanigans"?!?!?!?! You mean doing their job?

Get real...


----------



## AKA (Mar 18, 2011)

rrdude said:


> George said:
> 
> 
> > it. :help:
> ...



You remember the 60's ? I was there in the 60's I just dont remember much. :unsure:


----------



## Ryan (Mar 18, 2011)

Bierboy said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > ...As long as you are nice white skinned you're OK. But if you are brown skinned, it is prudent to have some additional documentation just in case.
> ...


I can't wait to hear your explanation of why you think that's racist. It's a statement of fact, and I expect that Jishnu has more than ample personal experience to prove it.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 18, 2011)

Ryan said:


> Bierboy said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Ditto! Id say that Jis is probably the most experienced World traveler on this site and we do have alot with all kinds of experiences! (BTW, Jis is of Indian extraction FYI!!)


----------



## jis (Mar 18, 2011)

Bierboy said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > ...As long as you are nice white skinned you're OK. But if you are brown skinned, it is prudent to have some additional documentation just in case.
> ...


No I am not kidding, and no it is not a viewpoint. It is the reality today. Racism is not good at all, but that does not mean that it is not alive and well in offcialdom all across the world, even though some of them would shout from the rooftops that it is not. And BTW this holds true irrespective of skin color of the perpetrators. While in US one is likely to get better treatment being white, in certain other parts of the world being brown skinned has distinct advantages too. But here we were talking about the US.

Now when one is traveling, either one can be on perpetual crusade fixing the racism nits of the world, interrupting ones trip every so often to set things straight, or one can save it and deal with it separately without interrupting ones trip. I prefer the latter after having spent considerable amount of money and effort to set the trip up etc. Hence I take the prudent steps necessary to ensure such.

I know some have difficulty dealing with unfortunate realities, but I am happy to leave it to them to bear their own crosses whichever way they want. I was just stating a fact, inconvenient maybe, based on a total of several million miles of flying and several hundred thousand miles of train riding, and all those travels involving 100s of border crossings. I have experienced the wrath of Russian Police and the French Gendarme, Japanese white gloved railway staff trying to play cops, US INS and CBP/ICE folks and rent a cops, in droves, and even the silly Indian Police. Each have their own foibles and prejudices, and it is best to recognize such and deal with them case by case and learn. And frankly I don't hold a grudge against any of them. They are just being human in the circumstances that they find themselves. Take it or leave it, but I implore please don't pass uninformed judgments.


----------



## leemell (Mar 18, 2011)

rrdude said:


> Bierboy said:
> 
> 
> > it most DEFINITELY is their business...and you were WRONG to act the way you did...
> ...


You probably shouldn't sue, the Supreme Court has already adjudicated this question and found in favor of the Government. You'll just wind up paying court costs (you really don't want that either, it is VERY expensive.)


----------



## DJ (Mar 18, 2011)

Guys, if the border control squad can waylay you in a train station parking lot and interrogate you, then they could stand at the end of your driveway and do the same thing. I am pretty sure that as a US born citizen I do not have to carry "papers" when I move about the country or across the street to my mailbox. Don't let the bullies win.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 18, 2011)

DJ said:


> Guys, if the border control squad can waylay you in a train station parking lot and interrogate you, then they could stand at the end of your driveway and do the same thing. I am pretty sure that as a US born citizen I do not have to carry "papers" when I move about the country or across the street to my mailbox. Don't let the bullies win.


Only if your driveway is within 100 miles of a US border. :lol:

But seriously, it's a known fact that illegals will use any form of transit that they can to move about the country. So the Border Patrol is tasked with checking cars, trains, buses, and even occasionally planes that remain within the US for illegals. This started long before 9/11 too, the frequency may have increased since then, but it was going on for years prior to 9/11.

And the Supreme court has held that it is legal for them to ask anyone questions to determine that said person is in this country legally. So you have no recourse, other than trying to convince your Congress person to change things, something that is highly unlikely.


----------



## RRrich (Mar 18, 2011)

Bierboy said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > ...As long as you are nice white skinned you're OK. But if you are brown skinned, it is prudent to have some additional documentation just in case.
> ...


I agree that it is a sad racist statement - Unfortunately when I started teaching in an all-black ghetto school the kids convinced me that jis is absolutely right. Black (nonwhite) folks are treated differently than white folks.

I hate that fact but I believe it :angry:


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 18, 2011)

Something that anyone who travels extensively might want to consider is the new "USA Passport Card." Any US Citizen can apply for one, and it is a photo ID that states your Citizenship and Place of Birth. In addition, it is also good for land and water travel to Canada, Mexico. The benefit of having this in addition to a Passport Book is that you can easily carry it in your wallet, so you will always have it on you.

Info is here... Passport Card


----------



## DJ (Mar 19, 2011)

It may be legal for them to ask me, but I don't think that I am required by law to talk to them. Any legal opinions here from somebody with a legal background? If some fed asks me (a US born person) where I was born, am I obligated to even speak to him? This would be in a non-border crossing situation like the Amtrak station parking lot. If they tackle me and drag me off to some slammer can I sue them? I am just a USA born guy getting off a train walking to his car and not feeling warm feelings toward an interrogation by the feds.


----------



## tp49 (Mar 19, 2011)

I'm living in a foreign country right now where I stand out being that I am not Chinese. Every morning on the way to work and every night on the way home and even at off times whenever I get on the metro here and go through the security check I always have to put my bag on the x-ray machine. Why, because I'm a foreigner. It's the way the game plays here. I just make sure I have my papers on me and put my bag on the belt without them pointing. I've also randomly had the police ask to see my passport and visa while here.

I also agree with Jishnu, back in 2002 I was coming back from Montreal with my girlfriend at the time who is a US born person of Filipino descent. The CBP agent who boarded the train looked over her passport more than once. The last time I went through customs at the airport I was asked two questions and sent on my way. My traveling companion who is Chinese, and a naturalized US citizen was held longer. Yes, it happens because sad to say its easier to spot someone who looks outside of the norm whatever the norm may be. It's easier for me to be picked out here because I stand out where in Europe I probably wouldn't get a second look.

I am also of the belief that the government knows who the threats to the country's national security are but due to the over-sensitivity of most Americans and their willingness to cry racism at the drop of a hat they have the system that is in place now. I'd rather the powers that be go after the people they are watching, get rid of the "Security Theater: Dog and Pony Show" and allow us all to have a sense of normalcy again.


----------



## alanh (Mar 19, 2011)

tp49 said:


> I am also of the belief that the government knows who the threats to the country's national security are but due to the over-sensitivity of most Americans and their willingness to cry racism at the drop of a hat they have the system that is in place now. I'd rather the powers that be go after the people they are watching, get rid of the "Security Theater: Dog and Pony Show" and allow us all to have a sense of normalcy again.


True -- they should just be targeting people who look like Timothy McVeigh, Scott Roeder, and Eric Rudolph.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 19, 2011)

DJ said:


> It may be legal for them to ask me, but I don't think that I am required by law to talk to them. Any legal opinions here from somebody with a legal background? If some fed asks me (a US born person) where I was born, am I obligated to even speak to him? This would be in a non-border crossing situation like the Amtrak station parking lot.


You don't have to talk with them, but failure to do so could see you being detained until such time as they can verify that you are indeed in the US legally. And failing to talk with them will only increase their suspicion of you. It's a simple question that will take at most 1 minute out of your life and it helps to control the illegal population that so many people in this country are currently crying about and blaming all of our problems on. Granted I'm not one who does blame our problems on the illegal’s, most of the blame heaped on them is utter nonsense, but it's easier to blame someone else, but I digress.

And as I've mentioned before, if you are within 100 miles of a US border, they can stop you at any time to ask you that question. I've gone through check points while driving on I-87 in NY State opposite Lake Placid because that's within 100 miles of the border. They stop buses, trains, and while I've never heard of it happening, in theory they could stop people just walking down the street of their hometown if it's within 100 miles of the border.

It's also important to note that the ocean's are considered borders, so for example Washington DC is within 100 miles of a US border.

And while I’m not a lawyer, this topic has been discussed extensively here more than once and we’ve had a few lawyers weigh in on this, including one who specializes in immigration and knows the rules very well.



DJ said:


> If they tackle me and drag me off to some slammer can I sue them?


No. US law gives them the ability to ask you that question and if they either don't believe your answer or get no answer, they have the legal right to detain you by any means necessary. Your only recourse is to get Congress to change the law.



DJ said:


> I am just a USA born guy getting off a train walking to his car and not feeling warm feelings toward an interrogation by the feds.


Being asked "Are you a US citizen" is hardly an interrogation.

And having been detained for 3 hours by Canadian border patrol several years ago, thoroughly patted down, asked multiple questions, threatened with the loss of my car and everything in it, threatened with jail, and then thrown out of Canada for 1 year, I can promise you that 1 simple question doesn't qualify as an interrogation.


----------



## Bierboy (Mar 19, 2011)

This thread is hilarious...


----------



## BobWeaver (Mar 19, 2011)

AlanB said:


> DJ said:
> 
> 
> > It may be legal for them to ask me, but I don't think that I am required by law to talk to them. Any legal opinions here from somebody with a legal background? If some fed asks me (a US born person) where I was born, am I obligated to even speak to him? This would be in a non-border crossing situation like the Amtrak station parking lot.
> ...


No officer of any organization/agency can detain someone for maintaining his or her silence, not answering a question, or without probable cause. Bottom line.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 19, 2011)

BobWeaver said:


> No officer of any organization/agency can detain someone for maintaining his or her silence, not answering a question, or without probable cause. Bottom line.


I wouldn't suggest trying that with the border patrol. They can!

They have probable cause, they suspect you're not here legally. So they can detain you until your status can be determined.


----------



## BobWeaver (Mar 20, 2011)

AlanB said:


> BobWeaver said:
> 
> 
> > No officer of any organization/agency can detain someone for maintaining his or her silence, not answering a question, or without probable cause. Bottom line.
> ...


The Border Patrol is absolutely not immune to any of what I listed above. Our rights do not change depending on what agency may be questioning us. The fifth amendment still applies. The same goes for answering a police officer during a traffic stop. While I have no reason not to display my ID to a BP officer, I would have no issue with not answering questions from a BP officer. It is well documented that BP officers simply move on to other passengers in the car if a given passenger does not say a word to any question asked. They may try and flex their muscles a bit, but at the end of the day, they know they can't force you to say anything.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 20, 2011)

BobWeaver said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > BobWeaver said:
> ...


Bob,

When you enter the US from a foreign country, you have no constitutional rights until it is determined that you are indeed a legal resident of the US and entitled to those rights. Your only rights those granted under the Geneva Convention. The US has determined that if you are within 100 miles of the US, then it is the same as if you are crossing the border. I quote:



> The United States Supreme Court ruled that Border Patrol agents may stop a vehicle at fixed checkpoints for brief questioning of its occupants even if there is no reason to believe that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.[4] The Court further held that Border Patrol agents "have wide discretion" to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for additional brief questioning.


While this cite happens to refer to private cars, please note the "brief questioning" part of that cite. Failure to answer would constitute reasonable suspicion that you are not here legally and therefore they would be allowed under US law to detain you until such time as it can be confirmed by other means that you are indeed in the US legally. Please flip to page #10 of this GAO report for the cite.


----------



## jis (Mar 20, 2011)

AlanB said:


> When you enter the US from a foreign country, you have no constitutional rights until it is determined that you are indeed a legal resident of the US and entitled to those rights. Your only rights those granted under the Geneva Convention. The US has determined that if you are within 100 miles of the US, then it is the same as if you are crossing the border.


I don't exactly know what the rules of engagement are in an encounter with CBP agents within the borders of the US within 100 miles of the border, but at least at entry points, the onus is certainly on the person trying to enter the US to prove to the agent that said person is doing so legally, rather than the other way round. IOW in some sense it is guilty until proved innocent in that case.

For example, once when I was entering the US using a brand spanking new US Passport, which had not been stamped outside the US, because the French are too lazy to stamp passports  , I was asked to convince the agent that I was resident in US (mind you I am trying to enter the US with a US Passport!!!). In that case producing my Drivers License did the trick, but who'd have thunk that you need your Drivers License *and* Passport to enter the US?

Sometimes it is even more weird. Before I got my US citizenship, I was once traveling on a new Indian Passport which had an I-551 Permanent Residence Authorization stamped in it but I had not received my Green Card yet. Anyway I was asked to prove that I reside in the US. I remembered that I had my Bell Labs Middletown Id which has the location stamped on it, in my carry-on, which I showed the agent, and that satisfied him!!! Come again? An Id card, the validity of which the agent has no way of verifying was good enough?

The bottom line is, that the best course is to not get all high and mighty, don't lose your wits and answer completely honestly and produce any supporting evidence that you can. Once you get high and mighty all bets are off. All that will be required after that are more convincing and irrefutable evidences, which unfortunately most don't carry in their pockets.

Again, take this advice or leave it. But this course of action works the best for me. Not only with US-CBP who are mostly pretty benign but usually ruder than most others in the world, who can be very pleasant but at the end of the day often way less benign than US CBP. I have dozens of stories of such experiences from around the world. In case you are curious PM me.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 20, 2011)

As a frequent crosser of the borders of both Mexico and Canada for several years back in the day, have had varied experiences with the officials of the three countries involved. For many years all you had to do m ost times when crossing the border via land was answer the questions "Are you a US citizen?" and "Are you bringing anything back to declare?" :lol:

(of course I am an Anglo male with a Texas accent.) My late wife was a Canadian citizen and on occasion was asked to produce either her Canadian Passport or later on her Green Card.

On the few occasions I was asked for ID, a Texas drivers license worked (for years they didnt even have a picture on them ,easy to fake!  ) On one occasion I had lost my license and showed them a Library Card! :lol: Suspects of a certain age had to produce Draft Cards to prove they were registered for the Military Draft, and once these went away they still checked to see if you were in the sytem since registration for US citizens was mandatory at 18 even though there was No Draft! :wacko:

In recent years when crossing the Mexican border via Auto(who would want to do that Now! :excl: :excl: :excl: )one had to show a Driver License, proof of Insurance (Texas has a Law requiring Insurance) and occasionally another form of ID. Usually the same questions were asked! Vehicles were randomly searched, dogs were present and the occasional person or persons were asked to "come inside" for further questioning by the guys with the big guns and the hard looks! :help:

Of course now a Passport is mandatory, the dogs are pretty much present at all points and many more people are subjected to questioning, searches etc. :angry2: If they've found any Terroists crossing the border with these actions must have missed it on the News?? To be fair, Drugs and Illegal Aliens are the main reason for these tactics but it's still not going to prevent anything they are trying to stop since 95% of the Drugs come in via Cargo Shipments, Airplane and the Illegals are smuggled by coyotes or overstay Visas once they are here!

I have noticed that people, when traveling, seem to be uncomfortable around those that look "different" than them, whether its Color of Skin, Clothing, Language, Customs etc. Friends in the Govt. and LE tell me that there are many more "tips" and "reports" about Suspicious Persons involving these "different" people, but maybe this is just latent Racism, Ignorance or Paranoia brought about by Right Wing Politicians and Sensationalist Media!


----------



## BobWeaver (Mar 20, 2011)

AlanB said:


> BobWeaver said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Alan,

Whether or not you’re a citizen, and whether or not you happen to be within 100 miles of a border, you have rights under the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment gives every person the right to remain silent and the right not to answer questions asked by a police officer or other government agent, no matter what nationality they may look to be. Sure, BP can stop a vehicle at fixed checkpoints for brief questioning, but this absolutely does not mean a person's rights are suddenly void. That person still has a constitutional right to maintain his or her silence, as it is decidedly not a crime to not answer questions. Only a judge can make a person legally obligated to speak.


----------



## GAT (Mar 20, 2011)

Since this thread has been going on for just short of thirteen months, methinks we need a member who is a lawyer with immigration and constitution expertise to provide a researched legal opinion, citing applicable laws, regulations, and court opinions, etc. as well as listing his credentials. Pro bono, of course! :giggle:


----------



## jis (Mar 20, 2011)

jimhudson said:


> I have noticed that people, when traveling, seem to be uncomfortable around those that look "different" than them, whether its Color of Skin, Clothing, Language, Customs etc. Friends in the Govt. and LE tell me that there are many more "tips" and "reports" about Suspicious Persons involving these "different" people, but maybe this is just latent Racism, Ignorance or Paranoia brought about by Right Wing Politicians and Sensationalist Media!


So true! Like the time at Jacksonville, the Silver Star was held for 6 or 7 hours based on a call from someone with overactive imagination on the train to 911 reporting suspicious activity because 6 Asian looking men were being moved from one car to another by a Hispanic CA to make room for a large group boarding at JAX. Go figure. And they called out the cavalry without bothering to ask the train crew if they were actually being hijacked to be run into the Amshack at Jacksonville.

Anyway, we sat around JAX station gouging on Fire Department and Amtrak provided coffee and doughnuts all night while the DHS/Local Police/whoever else together with what looked like a platoon of dogs, who mostly sat around wagging their tails, did god knows what. After 6 hours they detached the last car of the train, (maybe because it was the easiest to detach, who knows?) and let the rest of the train and everyone on it including the 6 Asian looking men and the Hispanic CA and the large group that joined the train at JAX proceed on their journey, albeit a little more cozily since they had to fit everyone in one less Coach!!! I went back to my roomette and went to sleep only to wake up at lunchtime. Didn't need breakfast after all those doughnuts  . We got into Newark at 11pm.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 20, 2011)

BobWeaver said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > BobWeaver said:
> ...


Well Bob, I'm not going to debate this with you further, but I highly suggest that you don't try that tactic as the Supreme Court has essentially decided that you are wrong. Yes, you're technically correct that you don't have to answer. But doing so gives them probably cause to detain you since they will have to verify by other means that you belong in this country. So unless you don't want to go where you wanted to go on your original schedule, I wouldn't recommend silence. If you don't like that please feel free to take it up with the Supreme Court; but I wouldn't hold my breath as they've already ruled against you.


----------



## leemell (Mar 20, 2011)

BobWeaver said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > BobWeaver said:
> ...


As Alan tried to tell you, you can remain silent, but you can, and probably will be detained until such time as your nationality can ascertained. The Supreme Court has agreed to this and it is the constitutional law of the land until and if the Supreme Court decides to change it. I wouldn't hold my breath and would certainly not want to test it.


----------



## BobWeaver (Mar 20, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Well Bob, I'm not going to debate this with you further, but I highly suggest that you don't try that tactic as the Supreme Court has essentially decided that you are wrong. Yes, you're technically correct that you don't have to answer. But doing so gives them probably cause to detain you since they will have to verify by other means that you belong in this country. So unless you don't want to go where you wanted to go on your original schedule, I wouldn't recommend silence. If you don't like that please feel free to take it up with the Supreme Court; but I wouldn't hold my breath as they've already ruled against you.


Neither will I. You are talking about two very different things here - the right to silence, and the fact that said silence may result in detention. I never argued against the second part of that, although there have been cases when BP agents onboard the LSL have simply moved on to other passengers if a previous passenger doesn't answer the officer's questions. The right to silence has not been decided against by the Supreme Court. Don't confuse the two.


----------



## tp49 (Mar 20, 2011)

George said:


> Since this thread has been going on for just short of thirteen months, methinks we need a member who is a lawyer with immigration and constitution expertise to provide a researched legal opinion, citing applicable laws, regulations, and court opinions, etc. as well as listing his credentials. Pro bono, of course! :giggle:


Even at pro-bono y'all still couldn't afford my fee. :lol:



BobWeaver said:


> Neither will I. You are talking about two very different things here - the right to silence, and the fact that said silence may result in detention. I never argued against the second part of that, although there have been cases when BP agents onboard the LSL have simply moved on to other passengers if a previous passenger doesn't answer the officer's questions. The right to silence has not been decided against by the Supreme Court. Don't confuse the two.


It's ok you confused reasonable suspicion and probable cause (which is common). An agent needs "reasonable suspicion" to stop you but "probable cause" to detain you and the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination generally doesn't kick in until there's a "custodial interrogation."


----------



## GAT (Mar 20, 2011)

OK, let's get down to earth here. AlanB and others aren't confused; they're making the practical point that's it's probably not advisable to assert your right to silence if it's possibly going to lead to detention (unless, of course, you are in the country illegally).


----------



## BobWeaver (Mar 20, 2011)

tp49 said:


> It's ok you confused reasonable suspicion and probable cause (which is common). An agent needs "reasonable suspicion" to stop you but "probable cause" to detain you and the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination generally doesn't kick in until there's a "custodial interrogation."


A BP agent at a fixed checkpoint can stop a vehicle even without reasonable suspicion. A BP agent that's part of what's called a roving (mobile) checkpoint can't do that, however.

Anyway, enough of this.


----------



## jis (Mar 20, 2011)

George said:


> OK, let's get down to earth here. AlanB and others aren't confused; they're making the practical point that's it's probably not advisable to assert your right to silence if it's possibly going to lead to detention (unless, of course, you are in the country illegally).


Specially in that case one would probably want to spin out a believable yarn as convincingly as possible rather than trying to assert right to silence :lol:


----------



## leemell (Mar 20, 2011)

BobWeaver said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > It's ok you confused reasonable suspicion and probable cause (which is common). An agent needs "reasonable suspicion" to stop you but "probable cause" to detain you and the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination generally doesn't kick in until there's a "custodial interrogation."
> ...


Not true and that is what you are probably confusing. ANYWHERE within 100 miles of the border, fixed or mobile they legally can and will stop you. See SCOTUS rulings.


----------



## BobWeaver (Mar 20, 2011)

leemell said:


> BobWeaver said:
> 
> 
> > tp49 said:
> ...


See the bottom of page 18/top of 19 here for an official report on the contrary.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 20, 2011)

You're going to have to post a quote, because I can't see anything on page 18/19 that support your claim.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 20, 2011)

OK, so I think I found what you're talking about at the end of page 10:



> Border Patrol agents at checkpoints have legal authority that agents do not have when patrolling areas away from the border. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Border Patrol agents may stop a vehicle at fixed checkpoints for brief questioning of its occupants even if there is no reason to believe that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.10 The Court further held that Border Patrol agents “have wide discretion” to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for additional brief questioning.11 In contrast, the Supreme Court held that Border Patrol agents on roving patrol may stop a vehicle only if they have reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains aliens who may be illegally in the United States—a higher threshold for stopping and questioning motorists than at checkpoints.12 The constitutional threshold for searching a vehicle is the same, however, and must be supported by either consent or probable cause, whether in the context of a roving patrol or a checkpoint search.13


I think that Lee's claim is that they can stop you when fixed or mobile with reasonable suspicion, which is proved correct by this report. You are correct in saying that they can stop you without reasonable suspicion at a fixed checkpoint, but I don't see Lee making that claim anywhere.


----------



## tp49 (Mar 21, 2011)

BobWeaver said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > It's ok you confused reasonable suspicion and probable cause (which is common). An agent needs "reasonable suspicion" to stop you but "probable cause" to detain you and the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination generally doesn't kick in until there's a "custodial interrogation."
> ...


Especially considering you never mentioned anything about checkpoints which wasn't the issue I was writing on. I was however, writing on the right to silence under the 5th Amendment and when it kicks in. Generally it does so upon what is known as a "custodial interrogation." (i.e., that point when you are not "free to leave.")

Also, per the report you quote on page 9, a mobile or "tactical" checkpoint is still operated at a fixed location. Checkpoints are considered "fixed" whether tactical or permanent.

As for agents on roving patrol, they must have reasonable suspicion to stop someone and probable cause to search the same as in normal criminal procedure law. Generally speaking a stop using reasonable suspicion can lead to finding the necessary probable cause.

Thus, at a checkpoint no need for reasonable suspicion to stop. On patrol, normal criminal procedure law applies.

Based on CBP's definition of a checkpoint, i.e. operated at a fixed location, a reasonable person would be led to believe that the agents boarding the LSL are "on patrol" and not operating at a checkpoint. Therefore, it the normal criminal procedure law applies there.

That said the question becomes are the agents working the LSL on patrol or operating a checkpoint. I believe it is the former.


----------



## DJ (Mar 24, 2011)

Anyway, the whole federal interrogation has soured me on Amtrak. Armed bullies with dogs and guns shining flashlights in your face, and more of them waiting to corral you through a fenced area to be interrogated at your destination. I liked Amtrak, too. But I'm gonna drive or stay home. I was going to book a trip out west, but just can't bring myself to do it.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 24, 2011)

DJ,

You're not safe driving either. Pick the wrong road on the wrong day and you'll be going through a check point. It's happened to me a couple of times on I-87 in New York State in the Lake Placid area.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 24, 2011)

It's your choice, but I wouldn't let the extraordinarily low possibility of a few minutes of discomfort dissuade me from taking a trip.


----------



## jis (Mar 24, 2011)

Ryan said:


> It's your choice, but I wouldn't let the extraordinarily low possibility of a few minutes of discomfort dissuade me from taking a trip.


I do 15 to 20 thousand miles on Amtrak and in the last 5 years I have been checked only twice personally (ignoring border crossing checks of course). Both times it consisted of asking me - oddly enough - where I was born, and then even more oddly, when I said India, they did not ask me anything further!!! I swear sometimes I cannot make any sense of what they do! I of course had my handy dandy US passport handy, but they didn't want to know what country I was a citizen of and whether I was here legally or illegally or just passing through or what. Outside that 5 year window once at Rochester they did the whole 9 yards of checking papers soviet style. That was closer to 9/11.

There have been other times when the train I was on was checked, but on those occasions I was not personally checked. This includes the 6 hour donut and coffee fest in Jacksonville while what appeared to be a platoon of DHS and other assorted law enforcement and a dozen dogs sat around wagging their tails most of the time as they supposedly looked for terrorists on Silver Star.


----------

