But it's not illegal for a US citizen to be carrying no form of identification, which makes "you have no papers" kind of a flimsy argument: how do you know the person is not, in fact, a citizen? Especially on a domestic flight, where there was nothing forcing any of the US citizens on the flight to bring travel documents like a passport with them.
But it's not illegal for a US citizen to be carrying no form of identification
On a commercial flight? Of course it is. This is different from accosting a pedestrian on a street without probable cause.
[EDIT: Note what the regulation actually says:
"If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint." (That does NOT, in itself, include boarding a plane.) Continuing: "You may be subject to additional screening. You will not be allowed to fly if your identity cannot be confirmed, you chose to not provide proper identification or you decline to cooperate with the identity verification process."
So, had there been passengers for which a knowing exception had been made, the investigators would have known that going in. So, it's wrong to say that "it's illegal" to be on a commercial flight in that case, but for the purpose of this specific search, any such granted variances would have had to be on record, and known to the investigators.
That's just not true. I've gotten on planes without ID before, after losing my driver's license. I got patted down extra thoroughly, but there's no issue of legality.
This. It is very possible to fly without ID. Have done it several times due to lost wallet/id. Takes longer. And there is more verification. But def possible.
I did it last week when I accidentally shipped my wallet containing my drivers license and passport home before flying home. It's nothing more serious than waiting a little more before getting through the line.
It's interesting that you can fly without ID ( airlines in the UK closed that hole years ago to prevent ticket resale ) but I'm confused why that led to additional pat-down scrutiny.
Surely the thoroughness physical screening should be orthogonal to identity? Otherwise it suggests that someone who does have ID to fly receives less scrutiny, which is a security vulnerability.
To invert: everyone boarding an aircraft should be physically screened to the same extent.
Adding another "It's completely possible" data point. I've done it at least twice (probably more, but I only remember the twice due to the "enhanced patdown" I received being a bit...touchy-feely...)
also note that it's currently (idk how that will change with the clusterfuck that is REAL ID, though) legal and possible to board a domestic flight without any forms of ID.
>how do you know the person is not, in fact, a citizen?
By checking their ID?
Don't you think it's a little hypocritical of you? You seem just fine with green card holders being subjected to something you yourself would not stand for. My spouse has a green card. I find the requirement rather onerous given the level of scrutiny required to get one.
Edit: Oh yes. Let the down votes begin. How many DHS officials looked through your wedding photos? ID requirements are fine for "those" people.
Errr... you didn't parse the context of what I said, did you? They wouldn't have an ID to check.
My point was that if you're not carrying any form of identification, there's no way for anyone to prove you're not a US citizen. And that that's a good thing, because the perspective of American law is that you need positive proof that someone is an illegal immigrant to arrest them, rather than just a lack of proof of them being a US citizen. Because—crucially—it's perfectly customary for US citizens to walk around without such proof, and so the law can't work any other way.
This creates a loophole for those who lose, forget, or never had green cards: if you just avoid carrying any ID, you can, when questioned, say you're a US citizen who left their ID at home. It's then up to the other party to prove otherwise; until they do, they can't detain you, because you're presumably a US citizen without their ID and there is no crime in that.
This didn't used to be a feasible thing to do, because you are required to carry some form of ID if you want to operate a motor vehicle, and the US is a big sprawl that requires most people to be operating motor vehicles at least some of the time. But as the US gradually builds up metropolitan areas with public transit systems, this becomes less of a concern; for many Americans, there's nothing they do on an average day that requires an ID, and they'd be fine without it.
(Also, re: "something you yourself would not stand for"—I'm not an American myself. I just like contrived discussions of law.)
Would love to know the legal details behind this scenario and what rights people actually have to be stopped by various types of law enforcement, in such a simple case as just leaving a flight you were just legally on.
I was once stopped and asked for my ID (and other questions) because someone had committed a robbery in the area.
People are routinely stopped at checkpoints when crossing state lines, when police are searching for someone, and at "dragnets" for DUI and immigration.
And yet, suddenly, the left-wing media cares?
Could that have anything to do with their candidate (Hillary) having lost the election?
They're going to exploit anything they can to make Trump look bad, just as the right-wing did when Obama was in office.
all lies and garbage. they aren't searching for someone specific, and if they were they wouldn't need to ask you for your ID because they'd already know who they were looking for.
This is incredibly disturbing. This reminds me of all the random border patrol checkpoints set up in Arizona and California that were hundreds of miles from the border, stopping all the highway traffic. Of course this is where all those famous Checkpoint USA videos come in (https://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA).
I can only imagine what would happen if they just started stopping everyone on the freeway asking for ID...
I can only imagine what would happen if they just started stopping everyone on the freeway asking for ID...
Don't the police set up roadblocks which stop everybody if they're trying to apprehend a fugitive and they think said fugitive is driving in a particular direction?
There are a few reasons why police will set up roadblocks, yes, like a manhunt, missing prisoner, or DUI checkpoint. The big difference is they don't ask for ID at these positions, and I've never personally seen a roadblock on a major interstate, usually it is smaller roads and closer to where they think the person might be. Of course roadblocks are only useful if you can set up blocks all around a perimeter.
Also, those roadblocks are extremely temporary by nature, in terms of hours. Some of the border patrol checkpoints are basically permanent (a big sticking point in terms of the law).
Now let's expand this instead of fugitive, you're looking for illegal immigrants on a list of people. Does that mean you can stop everyone, and scan their ID to try to find these people? Not to mention search the vehicle?
In terms of the constitution, my right to free travel and the 4th amendment, I would hope that such a thing wouldn't happen, but it seems like that is what they are trying.
For airports, things are a bit different, and you waive certain rights because of public safety and the risk of terrorism. But I can see something like that being moved down to travel by road as well.
They definitely ask for ID at DUI roadblocks - license and registration, just like a traffic stop. They also will question passengers and if desired, ask you to go to 'secondary' for a search or K-9 inspection. I looked at the stats near San Bernardino while I was there for a time last year, and from what I recall they found more stolen vehicles, individuals with warrants and drugs than impaired drivers.
Yeah, that's part of the problem, they say the checkpoint is for one reason, but really they do it to try to catch anything going on.
For a DUI roadblock yeah they'll ask you for ID, but not all the people in the car. Also, for secondary at these border patrol checkpoints, I think it's pretty shaky legal ground, although they will try.
It honestly probably depends on circumstances you might not be aware of, like the description of the person they are looking for. Obviously if you match the description, then turn and run when you see them, they won't believe you're exercising. But if you don't match the description at all, I see that being a hard sell. I'd be asking the cop: do I match the description of the person you're looking for?
A DUI checkpoint is not an automatic waiver of your 4th amendment rights. In many places DUI checkpoints are not legal and instead they have drivers license checkpoints.
"I can only imagine what would happen if they just started stopping everyone on the freeway asking for ID..."
Those EZ-Pass transponders don't just transpond at toll plazas, and for those without EZ-Pass, license plate readers, and cell towers complement the aggregate data collected.
This has happened to me twice on Canadian flights; the second time I asked one of the police officers what was going on, and they said they were looking for someone whom the flight manifest said was on board the plane. I suppose they could have come onto the plane to pull someone off, but that would have delayed everybody far more than checking ID on the way off.
I wouldn't want this to be a routine fishing expedition, but if there's someone specific they're looking for and they have a reason to think the person in question is on the plane, I really don't see any problem.
Allowing violations of our rights "just in this case" is how they get stripped down to nothing. The government does not have the right to demand your ID at any time they please.
I don't think that's sufficient probable cause. They don't suspect that everyone on the plane is an illegal immigrant
More importantly, they should plenty of less-invasive procedures. The airline should have a passenger manifest of everyone who actually flew, for one thing.
Unfortunately their (ICE/CBP) identification of people is so poor that it appears to often be no more than a name match. My brother-in-law has a name that's very common in both Mexico and the US and as a result, he regularly gets stopped when flying so they can confirm he's not one of the people with that name who happens to have outstanding warrants.
Why would they check everyone's ID instead of just the people who looked like the person they were looking for? At least people who are obviously the wrong age and sex...
Why? What makes it reasonable to search all passengers on a plane to find an undocumented immigrant, that wouldn't also make it reasonable to search all passengers on a bus, or all congregants at a church, or all pedestrians at a crosswalk, or similar?
What happens if I don't have my citizenship papers with me? Is ICE going to take my word that I'm not the person they're looking for and I'm actually a citizen?
Why should I, a natural-born US citizen, be obligated to carry my citizenship papers around with me in any of those situations just in case ICE decides to show up? I have certain rights as a US citizen, and one of those is that I expect to be able to travel domestically without carrying my papers and without ICE detaining me.
That you're a natural-born citizen is completely irrelevant; naturalized citizens are no less entitled to the exact same rights less serving as POTUS. See the supreme court ruling from Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913). Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/231/9/case.html
I take a different view. I would expect the airline to know the full name and age and travel history of every single person on the flight from SFO->NYC.
Did they tell CBP that the person was on the flight?
Did they tell CBP that the person may have been on the flight?
Didn't they know for sure?
Since it's easy to be unclear of your legal rights and protections, can you ask officer if you're legally obligated to comply with their request, and if they're recorded lying can the agency be held accountable?
That might be another way to try and have a legal push back, as most people, probably myself too, might not feel up to trying to stand their ground on their rights impromptu with no time to become aware of whatever specific rights will challenged ahead of time.
My non-lawyerly understanding is that in theory, officers of the law have substantial protection as long as they can claim they were not willfully violating your rights. On top of that, in practice they have even more protections (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4221000)
Analysis from the Identity Project (PapersPlease.org):
"...In the case of Delta Flight 1583, we don’t know what would have happened if a passenger declined to answer questions, declined to show ID, or tried to walk past the CBP officers and leave the plane. Some of the passengers might perfectly legally have passed through TSA checkpoints and boarded the flight without having or showing any ID, as people do every day.
It’s unclear whether a court would find that, in the circumstances depicted in this photo, a reasonable person would have felt free to leave without answering questions or showing ID documents.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that law enforcement officers questioning and searching passengers on a common carrier are not required to tell you whether you have to comply with their “requests”, or to tell you whether you are free to leave.
The only way to find out whether you are required to answer questions is to stand mute. The only way to find out if you are required to produce or hand over documents is to keep them out of sight and not to hand over or open your bags or put your hands in your pockets. The only way to find out if you are free to leave is to walk away. The only way to find out whether government agents will allow you to exercise your rights is to exercise your rights. Only then are you likely to be found to have standing to challenge any infringement of your rights.
So far as we can tell, all the passengers on Delta Flight 1583 produced and handed over documents that the CBP officers found acceptable, and were then allowed to leave. So we will probably never know whether the courts would have upheld the legality of the CBP officers’ actions."
More (including links to statute and regulations purporting to authorize CBP boarding of domestic flights):
61 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 145 ms ] threadhttp://immigrationroad.com/blog/do-i-have-to-carry-my-green-...
[EDIT: Note what the regulation actually says:
"If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint." (That does NOT, in itself, include boarding a plane.) Continuing: "You may be subject to additional screening. You will not be allowed to fly if your identity cannot be confirmed, you chose to not provide proper identification or you decline to cooperate with the identity verification process."
So, had there been passengers for which a knowing exception had been made, the investigators would have known that going in. So, it's wrong to say that "it's illegal" to be on a commercial flight in that case, but for the purpose of this specific search, any such granted variances would have had to be on record, and known to the investigators.
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification
(they treat it as an exception, but it is right there on their website)
Surely the thoroughness physical screening should be orthogonal to identity? Otherwise it suggests that someone who does have ID to fly receives less scrutiny, which is a security vulnerability.
To invert: everyone boarding an aircraft should be physically screened to the same extent.
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification
By checking their ID?
Don't you think it's a little hypocritical of you? You seem just fine with green card holders being subjected to something you yourself would not stand for. My spouse has a green card. I find the requirement rather onerous given the level of scrutiny required to get one.
Edit: Oh yes. Let the down votes begin. How many DHS officials looked through your wedding photos? ID requirements are fine for "those" people.
My point was that if you're not carrying any form of identification, there's no way for anyone to prove you're not a US citizen. And that that's a good thing, because the perspective of American law is that you need positive proof that someone is an illegal immigrant to arrest them, rather than just a lack of proof of them being a US citizen. Because—crucially—it's perfectly customary for US citizens to walk around without such proof, and so the law can't work any other way.
This creates a loophole for those who lose, forget, or never had green cards: if you just avoid carrying any ID, you can, when questioned, say you're a US citizen who left their ID at home. It's then up to the other party to prove otherwise; until they do, they can't detain you, because you're presumably a US citizen without their ID and there is no crime in that.
This didn't used to be a feasible thing to do, because you are required to carry some form of ID if you want to operate a motor vehicle, and the US is a big sprawl that requires most people to be operating motor vehicles at least some of the time. But as the US gradually builds up metropolitan areas with public transit systems, this becomes less of a concern; for many Americans, there's nothing they do on an average day that requires an ID, and they'd be fine without it.
(Also, re: "something you yourself would not stand for"—I'm not an American myself. I just like contrived discussions of law.)
I wonder what would have happened if someone refused.
I was once stopped and asked for my ID (and other questions) because someone had committed a robbery in the area.
People are routinely stopped at checkpoints when crossing state lines, when police are searching for someone, and at "dragnets" for DUI and immigration.
And yet, suddenly, the left-wing media cares?
Could that have anything to do with their candidate (Hillary) having lost the election?
They're going to exploit anything they can to make Trump look bad, just as the right-wing did when Obama was in office.
That doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional to require ID.
"Dragnets" are not a good thing. There's a reason people often use them as a synonym for invasive and authoritarian tactics.
I (and many people on both sides) have been opposed to dragnets (including DUI and immigration dragnets) for a long time.
DAE remember when right wingers were mocked for those videos in which they simply responded "Am I being detained?"
"someone fitting your description"
"someone reported a suspicious person"
all lies and garbage. they aren't searching for someone specific, and if they were they wouldn't need to ask you for your ID because they'd already know who they were looking for.
else they'd already be detaining you.
For the thrill of calmly and politely asking who I was and what I was doing in the area?
I can only imagine what would happen if they just started stopping everyone on the freeway asking for ID...
And so it begins.
Don't the police set up roadblocks which stop everybody if they're trying to apprehend a fugitive and they think said fugitive is driving in a particular direction?
Also, those roadblocks are extremely temporary by nature, in terms of hours. Some of the border patrol checkpoints are basically permanent (a big sticking point in terms of the law).
Now let's expand this instead of fugitive, you're looking for illegal immigrants on a list of people. Does that mean you can stop everyone, and scan their ID to try to find these people? Not to mention search the vehicle?
In terms of the constitution, my right to free travel and the 4th amendment, I would hope that such a thing wouldn't happen, but it seems like that is what they are trying.
For airports, things are a bit different, and you waive certain rights because of public safety and the risk of terrorism. But I can see something like that being moved down to travel by road as well.
For a DUI roadblock yeah they'll ask you for ID, but not all the people in the car. Also, for secondary at these border patrol checkpoints, I think it's pretty shaky legal ground, although they will try.
No idea what would have happened if I had refused, but I doubt it would have been "Ok, you're free to go."
In this case, did they have a description or simply "there's someone on the plane violating immigration law"?
It began years ago.
But, here's the ridiculous part, they define "near a border" as anywhere in the US that is 100 miles from a border or the ocean.
So, virtually all of California is in the "constitution free zone" -- as are a full 2/3rds of the US population.
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
It's my quick & dirty edit of their image.
Those EZ-Pass transponders don't just transpond at toll plazas, and for those without EZ-Pass, license plate readers, and cell towers complement the aggregate data collected.
I wouldn't want this to be a routine fishing expedition, but if there's someone specific they're looking for and they have a reason to think the person in question is on the plane, I really don't see any problem.
More importantly, they should plenty of less-invasive procedures. The airline should have a passenger manifest of everyone who actually flew, for one thing.
"as they searched for an undocumented immigrant who had received a deportation order to leave the United States."
"The search was conducted at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement"
Seems completely reasonable.
What happens if I don't have my citizenship papers with me? Is ICE going to take my word that I'm not the person they're looking for and I'm actually a citizen?
Why should I, a natural-born US citizen, be obligated to carry my citizenship papers around with me in any of those situations just in case ICE decides to show up? I have certain rights as a US citizen, and one of those is that I expect to be able to travel domestically without carrying my papers and without ICE detaining me.
Did they tell CBP that the person was on the flight? Did they tell CBP that the person may have been on the flight? Didn't they know for sure?
Don't we have computers now?
That might be another way to try and have a legal push back, as most people, probably myself too, might not feel up to trying to stand their ground on their rights impromptu with no time to become aware of whatever specific rights will challenged ahead of time.
Also, providing ID is pretty normal. Especially on flights. Even domestic ones. Or so I thought. Then again I live in communist Canada.
"...In the case of Delta Flight 1583, we don’t know what would have happened if a passenger declined to answer questions, declined to show ID, or tried to walk past the CBP officers and leave the plane. Some of the passengers might perfectly legally have passed through TSA checkpoints and boarded the flight without having or showing any ID, as people do every day.
It’s unclear whether a court would find that, in the circumstances depicted in this photo, a reasonable person would have felt free to leave without answering questions or showing ID documents.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that law enforcement officers questioning and searching passengers on a common carrier are not required to tell you whether you have to comply with their “requests”, or to tell you whether you are free to leave.
The only way to find out whether you are required to answer questions is to stand mute. The only way to find out if you are required to produce or hand over documents is to keep them out of sight and not to hand over or open your bags or put your hands in your pockets. The only way to find out if you are free to leave is to walk away. The only way to find out whether government agents will allow you to exercise your rights is to exercise your rights. Only then are you likely to be found to have standing to challenge any infringement of your rights.
So far as we can tell, all the passengers on Delta Flight 1583 produced and handed over documents that the CBP officers found acceptable, and were then allowed to leave. So we will probably never know whether the courts would have upheld the legality of the CBP officers’ actions."
More (including links to statute and regulations purporting to authorize CBP boarding of domestic flights):
https://papersplease.org/wp/2017/02/24/border-search-and-id-...