Not at all. That’s their job, and visas always come with the caveat that you can be denied entry. Doesn’t matter what country you’re going to (even visa-waiver countries can deny you entry if they don’t like something about you).
We don’t actually have her words, we have the student’s statement and a statement from CBP confirming the status. Whether she was professional in the encounter, or how it all plays out, would be interesting. For example, in his comments the student mentions asking repeatedly for his cell phone back.
Anyone anywhere knows that the last thing you do when being around law enforcement is start demanding things, it’s just not a smart thing to do.
Going for the hyperbole here… If you had a guy who showed up at the border, and you checked his contact list and it had Osama Bin Laden’s son in it, would you let the guy in?
We don’t know anything about his friends or associates. It’s always possible that they ran those names against other databases and people matched there.
That’s not exactly true. CBP has the power to pull people over within 100 miles of the border. But that’s not the same as saying people have “no rights”.
ACLU on this issue:
I see George already posted this.
Problem is that CBP agents often push the boundaries of what they are allowed to do, and foreign visitors have little power to push back.
The situation is different at border crossings. CBP has a lot more power at the border itself than it does in their forays through the interior of the country. And any foreign visitor is really at a huge disadvantage there.
The notion that this officer decided to mine his social media feed to see what his friends said is rather ridiculous. Sounds like the officer was on a serious power trip.
Well, with the divided Supreme Court that we have today, it could go either way.
I mean, Harvard and Yale are four justices each. That leaves Columbia as the swing vote.
(Note for the humor impaired: I do not intend to make light of either the unfortunate student’s plight, or the sad state of actual partisanship on SCOTUS. But an opportunity to tweak the Ha’vad/Yale crowd is not something lightly to pass up.)
But will there be an investigation? Was any of the dialogue taped for review? Why wasn’t a supervisor called into the situation? Are CBP/Customs folks allowed to make a unilateral decision - no review by a higher authority - with regard to entry? What specifically was the evidence used in denying entry?
These are questions that should be answered, but I bet they won’t.
And I’ve just dealt with US Customs in LAX on my return from Australia 10 days ago. So it’s not like I haven’t experienced the re-entry process recently (and it’s changed dramatically since my last entry some seven years ago).
Also note seems to be a rule only enforced along the Southern border. Having lived with site of a Northern border crossing I have never encountered any checkpoints but those at the border crossings. Additionally as I hike, I have crossed and recrossed the Northern border as the trail meanders along, most times there is a sign to be sure to check in with the nearest border crossing. I have not once done so.
Yup. And there is no recourse, except what the student is doing now, getting lawyers and attempting to overturn that. Customs folks have a heckuva lot of authority.
Doesn’t sound like much to investigate. Sounds like the kid got smart and mouthy, which led to her possibly yelling. Might be aggravating and intimidating, but not illegal.
Don’t forget to check which privilege card you have, that’ll define your treatment (I’ve got the tall white American male privilege card, so I sail through).
Ye Gods, the Harvard/Yale domination of SCOTUS is much worse than a pet peeve for me. It’s abusive. Makes me almost wish we could get a justice from Stanford.
Almost…
Seriously, there are plenty of good law schools in this nation. In no other field would this kind of stranglehold on power by two schools be tolerated.
CBP/ICE have claimed they can board trains and buses within 100 miles of the border and conduct warrantless searches but they cannot arrest someone without evidence they are not a citizen and they cannot arbitrarily stop and question someone without a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
As an American citizen I would expect that i have the same rights someone in Oklahoma has and that is to stay silent in the face of anything ICE/CBP may think they can do. And I would see them in court in short order. And it would be irrespective of the fact that Mrs darr and I reside about 50 miles north of the Mexican border. My fundamental rights are the same as any other citizen. I am not aware of a 100 mile exclusion zone in the Constitution. It is true though that when crossing a border one has no guaranteed rights until customs is cleared.
Last October, dear hubby and I went to International Falls, MN. We went on a lark. I’ve been to the border crossing to Mexico in Laredo/Nuevo Laredo. I know how expansive it is with its dozen or more gates through.
You can imagine my surprise when, on approaching the crossing to Canada at International Falls, this is what I found.
Stanford’s record is mixed at best. They have gifted the nation with two Supremes, O’Connor (well, okay…) and Rehnquist (of Bush v. Gore infamy). So I second your “almost”.
This is increasingly the case. A close friend sent her fifteen year-old French (white) son from Paris to stay with other friends of ours in Madison, WI for a couple of weeks. Arriving in O’Hare from CDG, the boy, a minor traveling alone, was detained for 2 hours while CBP checked his iPhone for social media posts. There must be some limits to what they are allowed to do, but somehow, our customs and immigration zones have become constitution-free zones.
Well, that’s maybe easier for you to get away with than if you were young and brown… Heck, that one kid just got locked up by ICE for several weeks, and he was an American citizen, and with paperwork on him.
That said, the re-organization of ICE/CBP is the first thing that has to be on the next President’s agenda (one with the ability to achieve critical thinking, anyway).
It is clear that the abuses of power are so rampant that none of the active participants should be allowed back in uniform until totally evaluated for psychological stability.
