19

I understand that prior to crossing being admitted to the US the rights I take for granted on US soil do not apply to me. But it isn't clear to me when passing through a US airport where "admission" has occured. Unlike, for example, the UK, where clear signage unambiguously marks an actual border, US airports have a confusing series of stages to pass through.

At what point in passing through these stages have I technically been admitted to the US, and acquired the full legal protections I expect there?

orome
  • 2,153
  • 4
  • 20
  • 31
  • 2
    Possible duplicate of What is the real legal status of an airport transit area? – JonathanReez Feb 20 '17 at 13:24
  • 4
    The question is meaningless since there is no special border: you are on US soil at all times – JonathanReez Feb 20 '17 at 13:30
  • 15
    And the legal status of arriving travelers (which tends to be exaggerated and misunderstood in many descriptions you can find on the net) is not related to being in a particular place with respect to an imaginary "border", but to having been outside the country, now being in its territory, but not yet having been inspected and admitted by the border force. – hmakholm left over Monica Feb 20 '17 at 13:37
  • @HenningMakholm: OK, clarified terms in the question accordingly. – orome Feb 20 '17 at 13:40
  • 1
    @JonathanReez: Not a duplicate: the question is not about what's different before being admitted to the US but at what point in passing through the airport I have technically been admitted to the US, and acquired the full legal protections I expect there? – orome Feb 20 '17 at 13:57
  • 2
    At the point when you cross the US border inside your plane. – JonathanReez Feb 20 '17 at 14:19
  • 6
    @JonathanReez: Now that's clearly not the case, as noted in the reference and in all of the answers so far. – orome Feb 20 '17 at 14:25
  • 2
    I'm not sure why you think the process is different for the U.S.? I haven't been to the UK, but it's the same in the U.S. as literally every other country I've ever visited. Once the immigration officer clears you, you're in. The steps in the U.S. are the same as everywhere else: deplane -> immigration -> customs. The only difference in the U.S. vs. some other places is that there isn't a 'transit zone' in U.S. airports, so transiting passengers have to do this, too. Exit controls are different in the U.S., though. Specifically, there aren't any. – reirab Feb 20 '17 at 19:55
  • 2
    @HenningMakholm Recently, CBP officers at Dulles airport defied a court order relating to people they were holding. They said that the people were not subject to the authority of the courts because they hadn't yet been admitted to the US. The argument is obviously hogwash, but it does show that the question is far from settled. – phoog Feb 21 '17 at 00:57
  • The rights discussed in the article you link to have nothing to do with the question of when you're admitted for the purpose of immigration law. They have to do with differences in the application of constitutional rights in the context of border crossings. For example, in a customs search in the baggage claim, there is no legal sense in which you're not in the US, yet the government's power of search is greater than it is on the street. Your question as asked is therefore very confusing. – phoog Feb 21 '17 at 01:54
  • @JonathanReez sadly seems to not be the case, many of the constitutional rights are seemingly being ignored because of the special status of being outside the legal country border when you arrive in a plane. :/ – Mark Mayo Feb 28 '17 at 03:39
  • @MarkMayo which ones? – JonathanReez Feb 28 '17 at 06:54
  • 1
    @MarkMayo You're not outside the "legal country border". You are inside the country, but have not yet been admitted. – David Richerby Feb 28 '17 at 09:36
  • @JonathanReez and David - https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone and http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/shena-gutierrez-us-mexico-border-constitution-die and http://www.storyleak.com/dhs-constitution-free-zones-us/ :/ But we should continue this in chat. – Mark Mayo Mar 01 '17 at 02:03
  • @MarkMayo the difference is one of function, not jurisdiction. The practice of searching people and their goods without a warrant at border crossings has been commonplace for centuries, so courts have found that it is not "unreasonable." Those who believe this is a violation of the 4th amendment mistakenly believe that the amendment prohibits warrantless searches absent suspicion, when it only prohibits unreasonable searches. If the fourth amendment was entirely inapplicable at the border, customs officers would be able to conduct body cavity searches without suspicion, but they cannot. – phoog Sep 14 '17 at 20:32

4 Answers4

22

When you are lawfully stamped and your status written in your passport. (Note that passports aren't always stamped by the officer if using an APC kiosk (which, at most airports, many VWP nationals can), but even then you've been lawfully admitted - you're admitted when the electronic admission record has been created). The term lawfully is very important.

To be clear, wherever you are in the country and however you crossed, you are or at least in theory supposed to be accorded basic and universal human rights. For example if hypothetically before crossing immigration/passport control you get murdered, the USA will prosecute the murderer to the fullest extent of the law.

When it comes to immigration benefits and law however, until you cross immigration/passport control (and are admitted lawfully) you have not been admitted into the USA. For this reason you have very limited legal standing with respect to immigration law and benefits.

See INA §101(a)(13)(A)

(13) 2/ (A) The terms "admission" and "admitted" mean, with respect to an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.

Thus after you cross (and not just cross but cross lawfully) immigration/passport control, then you have all the immigration rights. To make it even more complex, note that that even fter you cross, if for example it is realized that the immigration officer admitted you by mistake, you are not lawfully admitted. For example if you had previously committed a crime of moral turpitude (which makes you ineligible for a visa) but had mistakenly been awarded a visa by a consular officer based on your lies, and you used that visa to enter the USA through passport control, your entry was void ab initio because you were inadmissible from the very beginning and hence according to the court you were not lawfully admitted.

Augustine of Hippo
  • 29,314
  • 7
  • 84
  • 138
  • And where, exactly have do I "cross ... immigration/passport control". Is that the point at which my passport is stamped? – orome Feb 20 '17 at 14:21
  • 4
    And is it still the case that "wherever you are in the country, you are accorded basic and universal human rights"? – orome Feb 20 '17 at 14:23
  • 1
    Exactly at the point your passport is stamped. Correct! – Augustine of Hippo Feb 20 '17 at 14:28
  • 4
    It might help to mention that in most (all?) US airports, even after clearing immigration and being admitted, you still have to clear customs before you are free to leave the airport. People often confuse immigration with customs. However customs is not really about allowing you to enter the country, but rather your luggage. – Nate Eldredge Feb 20 '17 at 15:42
  • 5
    @NateEldredge You have a point. The truth however is that once the immigration guy has stamped your entry, you have been admitted. Depending on what happens at customs, they may revoke admission. Doesn't change the fact that you were actually admitted once stamped. If you commit crimes in the USA also your admission may be revoked, nevertheless doesn't change the fact that you were admitted at the point you were stamped. – Augustine of Hippo Feb 20 '17 at 15:45
  • @SheikPaul: Yes, I fully agree. But it would help to clarify the distiction in your answer, since the asker seems unclear and mentions a "confusing series of stages" (which I presume refers to immigration followed by customs). – Nate Eldredge Feb 20 '17 at 18:27
  • There are significant problems with this answer. One can pass through immigration, be stamped into the country, and then have someone at customs demand your cell phone or computer. Your rights with regard to such a search don't change whether one has received a passport stamp or not, as a number of things depend on simply being at the border, no matter which side of passport control you're on, or even within 100 miles of it. – Zach Lipton Feb 20 '17 at 21:09
  • @ZachLipton I think you fail to recognize there are different rights for citizens and visitors. Visitors never have the same rights as citizens however a lawfully admitted visitor acquires full visitor rights upon lawful admission which a visitor who was not lawfully admitted never gets. – Augustine of Hippo Feb 20 '17 at 21:25
  • 1
    "different rights for citizens and visitors": that is true, but not relevant to the special powers of search at the border. These derive from the fact that the person or goods being searched are crossing the border, irrespective of the traveler's nationality. The fact that you've been lawfully admitted for the purpose of immigration law, as @ZachLipton notes, isn't particularly relevant to the rules governing the search. – phoog Feb 21 '17 at 01:05
  • @SheikPaul I believe it's clear the the OP is interested also in rights related to searches at the border. Your answer doesn't address that at all. Someone in the international baggage claim area, even if they've had their passport stamped, does not have the same rights as if they're standing in the middle of an American city (which may or may not be different if said city is more than 100 miles from a border, including coasts). This is true whether one is a citizen or visitor. It would be nice if this answer reflected that. – Zach Lipton Feb 21 '17 at 08:59
  • @ZachLipton I get your point. I think since it is covered in chx's response response below. – Augustine of Hippo Feb 21 '17 at 11:15
5

At what point in passing through these stages have I technically been admitted to the US, and acquired the full legal protections I expect there?

Since 1976 you can be as much as a hundred miles from the border and run into a permanent checkpoint and kiss good bye to your legal protections. So I would not try to split hairs over which line in the fine floor mosaic of a US airport you need to walk over before you are in.

  • Unless of course OP is a citizen of the US. – JonathanReez Feb 20 '17 at 16:30
  • 9
    He mentioned airport very specifically including in his heading. What relevance has your answer to do with airport? Your answer didn't answer his question and the links you posted are irrelevant to his specific question. Your answer is wrong, simply wrong! – Augustine of Hippo Feb 20 '17 at 16:36
  • His question asks "acquired the full legal protections I expect there". That's what I answer: you don't. You never do. Those days are gone. –  Feb 20 '17 at 17:04
  • 4
    @chx Still wrong. The visitor acquires the full legal protection accorded a visitor once he is lawfully admitted. Full stop. The question is not about whether the legal rights of a visitor are the same as that of a citizen. No country accords a visitor exactly the same legal rights as a citizen and that was not the question here. You are answering a nonexistent question. – Augustine of Hippo Feb 20 '17 at 17:26
  • 7
    -1: arguing that a question is irrelevant does not answer it. Internal checkpoints have nothing to do with the question of whether you are admitted (at most, they are a place where your admitted status could be checked). And it's a gross exaggeration to say that you "kiss your legal protections goodbye" at such a checkpoint. There are legitimate concerns about internal checkpoints but they aren't some kind of Mad Max zone. – Nate Eldredge Feb 20 '17 at 19:29
  • It's fair to question whether this is a reasonable practical issue for travelers, and thus whether the question is on topic. But that should be done in a comment or meta thread, not in an answer. – Nate Eldredge Feb 20 '17 at 19:31
  • Which rights does anyone kiss goodbye at a border patrol checkpoint? – phoog Feb 21 '17 at 01:38
  • @phoog I guess he's of the opinion that being stopped at a DHS checkpoint to see if there are illegal aliens in your vehicle is a violation of his rights. – jwenting Apr 06 '17 at 07:23
0

Your rights have absolutely nothing to do with your physical location at any given moment.

They are conferred on you due to your status (citizen, alien, etc. etc.).

People usually confuse this but that is only because your STATUS is not CONFIRMED (and therefore, you do not witness the accompanying expected treatment in its manifestation upon you,) until/unless you cross a certain point.

However, your rights are completely independent of that crossing.
Therefore pretty much everyone is wrong.

The difference is knowing the true legal basis, vs. just summarizing what you witness...big difference, albeit a bit abstract-seeming to some.

ISAAC
  • 27
  • 1
  • 1
    It's kind of meaningless to claim someone has a right that they can't exercise. They might as well not have that right. – user541686 Feb 20 '17 at 19:47
  • 1
    @Mehrdad but this answer points out a problem in the question: an assumption that admission to the US has an effect on the rights enjoyed by the person being admitted. Whether rights are or are not acquired at the point of admission is an entirely separate question from "at what point am I admitted." – phoog Feb 21 '17 at 01:43
  • @phoog my understanding is the courts have ruled that (some of) your Constitutional rights do not apply until and unless you are admitted. Hence why they can legally search you at the border in ways they can't do once you're inside. If you're contesting the popular understanding you should provide details, not just make a claim. – user541686 Feb 21 '17 at 03:13
  • @Mehrdad the constitution prohibits "unreasonable" search. The courts have ruled that searches at the border may reasonably be conducted without suspicion of a crime. The searches therefore comply with the fourth amendment. It is not the case that the fourth amendment doesn't apply, and a border search could be found unreasonable for some reason and therefore unconstitutional. – phoog Feb 21 '17 at 03:49
  • @phoog: Point taken, but it seems to be another distinction without a difference, as far as this site is concerned (maybe not for Law.SE). You (a court in this case) can either say the amendment does not apply, or redefine "reasonable" to include whatever unreasonable thing you want so that the point is moot. The effect on the traveler is the same either way, which is what I was saying in my first comment. Rights that you can't exercise might as well not exist. It's like giving me free land on Mars and expecting me to treat it like an earthly asset. Sorry, but it may as well just not exist. – user541686 Feb 21 '17 at 04:25
  • @Mehrdad but the point is that people crossing the border indeed do not have a right to be free from search in the absence of criminal suspicion, but that the question implies a fundamental misunderstanding of why that is so. – phoog Feb 21 '17 at 04:35
  • @phoog: Does the "why" in any way affect the traveler? If the answer was "because purple is better than orange" would it change anything for the traveler? Why are you and this answer insisting on things that don't make a difference? – user541686 Feb 21 '17 at 04:47
  • 1
    This is not true. One's location at the border triggers the border search exception, which means searches work differently at the border than if you're someplace else. Physical location absolutely matters here. – Zach Lipton Feb 21 '17 at 09:02
  • @Mehrdad it doesn't make a difference to the traveler, but it makes a difference to the question. The question asked about admission without making more than indirect reference to the border search exception, but that's the asker's concern. It's like someone who wants to know about the offside rule in association football asking "at what point does the attacker enter the penalty area": it doesn't matter, because entering the penalty area has no bearing on the offside rule. Similarly, "at what point am I admitted to the US" has no bearing on the rules governing border searches. – phoog Feb 21 '17 at 12:42
  • Zach ... You're still missing it, though. Sure, there may be something called the Border Search Exception. But guess who the rule applies to? EVERYONE. ... See what I mean now? I guess this is the difference between someone sticking to strict legal pedantics, versus someone who wants to answer the question "well sure, but you know what he MEANT" .... In law, as in computers, semantics matter. In fact, they're everything... :) – ISAAC Feb 22 '17 at 00:49
  • @Mehrdad On second thought, it actually does make a difference to the traveler. If the fourth amendment does not apply at all, then border guards could search and seize people and goods without restriction. As it is, the search or seizure can still be challenged on fourth amendment grounds; it's just that the specific criteria for judging whether it is reasonable are different. – phoog Apr 06 '17 at 21:28
  • @Mehrdad I just came across another example showing why the fourth amendment matters at the border: United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, in which a woman challenged her four-day detention at the border on fourth amendment grounds. She lost, because there was reasonable suspicion that she was smuggling drugs (which she was in fact doing), but if the fourth amendment didn't apply at all, the case would never have made it to the Supreme Court. If customs were to subject someone to a body cavity search without reasonable suspicion, there's a good chance the search would be found unreasonable. – phoog Sep 08 '17 at 20:49
  • @phoog: I don't think that contradicts anything I said. Here's what I wrote: "My understanding is the courts have ruled that (some of) your Constitutional rights do not apply until and unless you are admitted. Hence why they can legally search you at the border in ways they can't do once you're inside." This seems completely in line with that case -- nowhere did I claim the 4th amendment is entirely invalidated. I even explicitly pointed out that the 4th amendment is flexible on the definition of "unreasonable", letting courts (re)define what is "reasonable" at the border. – user541686 Sep 08 '17 at 21:32
-2

There is no physical border inside an airport. Some would consider the transit area as some kind of no man's land but it isn't at all. Indeed, the transit area is governed by the country's law.

While arriving, even if you haven't yet passed the passport controls, you are already in the destination country. The passport controls is just there to allow you to get outside of the transit area. But you are already inside the country and the country's law are applicable to you.

On the other side, once the plane doors are closed, the plane is considered as an extension of the company home country territory. But while they aren't yet closed, the police can come into it and arrest someone. This has already happen in several well known cases.

Laurent
  • 3,205
  • 1
  • 10
  • 22
  • 4
    Can you source the claim that closing of aircraft doors has legal, territorial consequences? – hmakholm left over Monica Feb 20 '17 at 13:41
  • So the question (amended) is: at what point in passing through the airport have I technically been admitted to the US (and acquired the full legal protections I expect there)? – orome Feb 20 '17 at 13:41
  • This thread has good documentation about Tokyo convention (note, there are plenty of exceptions) : http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/49497/laws-governing-a-plane-in-flight – Laurent Feb 20 '17 at 13:45
  • 1
    @HenningMakholm Yes, for instance the US claims jurisdiction over offences committed aboard all US-registered aircraft and all US-destined aircraft once the last external door is closed immediately prior to takeoff power being applied, no matter where they are in the world. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/46501 Most other countries apply a similar claim. – Calchas Feb 20 '17 at 14:28
  • 3
    @Calchas: Empowering your courts to punish acts commited aboard such an aircraft is not the same as declaring the aircraft to be your territory! – hmakholm left over Monica Feb 20 '17 at 14:30
  • @HenningMakholm Totally agree. I was focusing on "legal" consequence not "territorial" consequence. Sorry for confusion. – Calchas Feb 20 '17 at 14:32
  • 1
    @Calchas claiming jurisdiction does not automatically deny any other jurisdictional claims by parties over the same issue - the US cant remove another countries jurisdiction over something that is 100% still in their territory. –  Feb 20 '17 at 15:16
  • @Moo Totally agree with you as well. – Calchas Feb 20 '17 at 15:32
  • 2
    The US has no "transit area". The departure waiting area is "inside" the US for immigration purposes, and you can just get up and leave without passing any checks. – user102008 Feb 20 '17 at 17:26
  • @user102008 Correct. Which is why transiting passengers must pass through immigration in order to access said departure area. The departures area at U.S. airports is the same for domestic and international flights. It's common for domestic and international flights to leave from adjacent gates in the same concourse. – reirab Feb 20 '17 at 20:04
  • 2
    "But while [the plane's doors] aren't yet closed, the police can come into it and arrest someone." Well, the police could hardly enter the plane when the doors are closed... – David Richerby Feb 20 '17 at 22:35
  • 1
    @DavidRicherby indeed, and they don't lose the power of arrest when thedoors close. They can require the doors to be opened. – phoog Feb 21 '17 at 01:13