border patrol on LSL

[PerRock]

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]

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.

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]

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

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.....

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...ws_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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Spokker]

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

Papers, please.

 

[Lakeshore]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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 bast@#$@, just make THEIR job a bit more miserable......

 

[GAT]

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]

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]

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.........