bureaucratic coughry

[Pushka]

Oh, I'm sure they know more about an inbound visitor than the visitor has remembered! Possibly because they do this prior scrutiny, my then-recent trip to Iran, with a nice full-page Iran visa, went un-commented on, entry and exit.

I drove through the control points in and out of the West Bank (DFAT: 'reconsider your need to travel' ); slowed but waved through on entry; stopped, showed them my Australian passport on exit, waived on.

Wow, you should have been flagged on so many levels. And then there is your travel history!

 

[RooFlyer]

Wow, you should have been flagged on so many levels. And then there is your travel history!

Hey, the Israelis are smart enough to know who not to mess with ... ie TKWIA !

 

[UP4014]

Our disorganised security is based on the hope criminals will enter through the front door.

When you stand back and look at an airport I'd be more worried about checking people getting a job there or who work on the periphery.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Laws/rights... either way you are making a statement based on a rhetorical and simplistic logic.

Am I? Which statement? The one about rights? If so, let me explain, as it's neither rhetorical nor simplistic (far from it, in fact).

Rights are subjective. Over centuries, various entities (clergy, politicians, councils etc etc) have tried to protect rights by enshrining them in laws, regulations, standards, codes etc. The law, or more correctly the courts, regularly determine which persons rights are more important than anothers. This is not new. Most of us believe we have a right to live freely as we wish in the community at large, but we don't. That perceived right can be taken away from us (forcefully if neccessary) if we are deemed to have breached one of those laws that holds a penalty of incarceration. All pretty clear cut but there are not laws to cover all perceived "rights" violations. Person A may believe they have the right to pick their nose in front of person B, however person B may believe they have the "right" not to be subjected to such a sight. Who is correct?

Now to put it in context. A lady believes her perceived "right" to a speedy customs clearance was taken from her due to some overzealous workers and others have jumped on the band wagon without knowing any details except a brief 3rd hand report on a forum and are basing their outrage on civil rights.

Of course it can be ours to judge! And indeed it should be!

Not when you don't have the information to make a reasoned judgement. That's generally referred to as a witch hunt or perhaps a kangaroo court.

I'm sorry MT, but this has clearly become a circular debate which is no longer presenting new topics. As I said previously, we'll have to agree to disagree and I'll respectfully withdraw before I type my mind on extemist civil libertarians (or as I'd prefer to call them, civil anarchists).

 

[Renato1]

I can see why you think coughry - because what is described on the surface doesn't make a lot of sense administratively.

What was your sister interrogated about? Money laundering or drugs? What was the point of that if they are going to search her for these anyway?

Or for links to Radical Christianity in the US? What's the point of the search, even if they find literature in her possession?

Or for espionage maybe? Sort of seems consistent with the interrogation and the search.

What is missing here is the apparent application of Natural Justice/Procedural Fairness - where one is advised of what has been alleged, and given the opportunity to respond. While she may not have liked what she heard, she would at least have left with a clear understanding of what had gone on - rather than with an impression that the whole thing was arbitrary and based on whim.

At the end of the day, BorderForce are government employees and I'm pretty sure the Act that governs them and the Operating Procedures they work to do not suspend the application of the requirements of Natural Justice/Procedural Fairness - or Judges would have a fit.

If what was in effect an accustion made against her was not explained to her, and she was not afforded the opportunity to respond to it, then she may wish to write to Minister Dutton and ask why Natural Justice was denied to her. And he would have to reply. We don't live in a Kafkaesque type world in Australia.
Regards,
Renato

 

[pyffii]

And you want to go there????

Put TA on your bucket list as it’s one of the most amazing cities on the planet

 

[juddles]

Although I understand the OP's initial post, and the perceived affront, I think that we are all too used to how easy it is now to travel between countries. I suspect the circumstances of the trip, and the disruption, meant emotions were generally elevated.

There are so many who judge the activities of law-enforcement with essentially no clue. I have suffered what I would consider "rude" staff in almost every airport, yet also have enjoyed great staff.

I think much of the distress as in this case is due to other reasons. To me, if some border control person quizzes me about why I am travelling from A to B to be to enter Z, that is normal. Others might describe this as being "interrogated". Really, were they strapped to a chair with a blinding light?

I hate that when customs/etc empty my bag and I have to re-pack it on the spot. It is an inconvenience. But that is all it is. It is no "power trip" or similar. I respect the fact that to be allowed to cross borders is actually a serious thing.

 

[OATEK]

A mate of mine, now retired from the Federal Police, was involved in tracking the Grandma's in the Kombi some years ago. When they pounced there was a considerable quantity of drugs involved. And a Grandma was recently arrested at SYD with a couple of kilos of cocaine (2017?). So over 60s are bound to be included in daily briefings from time to time when working out who should receive greater scrutiny. And additional flags over flying patterns are generally based on more than a whim.

I am sure it was not very pleasant, a bit like the time they took MrsOatek aside thinking she had hash or similar in her carry on, only to find it was a Christmas Pudding. And I am sure they could have shown some sympathy for someone who was here for a funeral.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Am I? Which statement? The one about rights? If so, let me explain, as it's neither rhetorical nor simplistic (far from it, in fact).

Rights are subjective. Over centuries, various entities (clergy, politicians, councils etc etc) have tried to protect rights by enshrining them in laws, regulations, standards, codes etc. The law, or more correctly the courts, regularly determine which persons rights are more important than anothers. This is not new. Most of us believe we have a right to live freely as we wish in the community at large, but we don't. That perceived right can be taken away from us (forcefully if neccessary) if we are deemed to have breached one of those laws that holds a penalty of incarceration. All pretty clear cut but there are not laws to cover all perceived "rights" violations. Person A may believe they have the right to pick their nose in front of person B, however person B may believe they have the "right" not to be subjected to such a sight. Who is correct?

Now to put it in context. A lady believes her perceived "right" to a speedy customs clearance was taken from her due to some overzealous workers and others have jumped on the band wagon without knowing any details except a brief 3rd hand report on a forum and are basing their outrage on civil rights.


Not when you don't have the information to make a reasoned judgement. That's generally referred to as a witch hunt or perhaps a kangaroo court.

I'm sorry MT, but this has clearly become a circular debate which is no longer presenting new topics. As I said previously, we'll have to agree to disagree and I'll respectfully withdraw before I type my mind on extemist civil libertarians (or as I'd prefer to call them, civil anarchists).

Ok - I see what's happened here. It's your understanding of what contitutes or defines 'rights'.

Whether you pick your nose in front of person B has nothing to do with fundamental rights around law enforcement - which is the issue with what's happening at airports.

The lady is not concerned about her 'right' to a speedy passage through customs... that probably doesn't exist. But what does exist - at least outside an airport - is the right not to be detained unlawfully... that is... without reason, without charge, without being informed of yor rights, without the right to contact a legal representative, or without the right to review (whether that 'review' is internal or external, such as a magistrate).

So it's not the 'right' to speedy customs clearence we're concerned about on this forum, it's the apparent lack of all those other fundamental rights which would apply outside on the street, that all of a sudden don't apply at the airport.

Therefore, as members of the public it is our concern. Do we need information to make a reasoned judgement? We already have it. In the case mentioned by the OP the person was subjected to an intimidating experience, with little or no transparentcy or reason. That is enough for us to be concerned and ask questions. It's an inquiry about due process (which is a 'right') and not a witch hunt.

 

[wandering_fred]

...
I hate that when customs/etc empty my bag and I have to re-pack it on the spot. It is an inconvenience. But that is all it is. It is no "power trip" or similar. I respect the fact that to be allowed to cross borders is actually a serious thing.

There are a number of groups in the USA that I wish could be convinced of your respect and understanding.....

Just wandering
Fred

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think much of the distress as in this case is due to other reasons. To me, if some border control person quizzes me about why I am travelling from A to B to be to enter Z, that is normal. Others might describe this as being "interrogated". Really, were they strapped to a chair with a blinding light?

I hate that when customs/etc empty my bag and I have to re-pack it on the spot. It is an inconvenience. But that is all it is. It is no "power trip" or similar. I respect the fact that to be allowed to cross borders is actually a serious thing.

The definition of 'interrogate' does not necessarily include 'being strapped to a chair'. At a border you have one or two (sometimes more) officials asking what may be considered personal and intrsive questions, and going through your personal posessions (which may include intimate toiletry items). And as a passenger, you have few - if any - apparent rights to protect you. This can be intimidating.

It's a bit like home burglaries... people feel violated that someone has been in their house, going through their personal things. There may be no intent by the burglar to create this fear of violation (they're just looking for cash or items to sell) - but it is a common outcome.

Where 'power trip' can appear to raise its head is the lack of communication or reason behind some of these searches. If 60 y/o was stopped and told 'we are looking for [xyz] becuase of [abc]' that would help address some of the imbalance of power. Clear communication could help change a situation of intimidation to one of 'yes ok, you are doing your job'.

But at the moment the more likely answer you're probably going to get is 'we don't have to tell you'. And that refusal to tell you means it can be very hard to hold these officers, or the process, accountable.

 

[tgh]

Nobody has commented on the confiscation of the phone.
How does that work ?
I understand that I may be asked to unlock my phone or laptop.. but I did not/do not plan to let them out of my sight.

 

[love_the_life]

Put TA on your bucket list as it’s one of the most amazing cities on the planet

No way! I have no desire to visit Israel at all.

 

[DC3]

… I am sure it was not very pleasant, a bit like the time they took MrsOatek aside thinking she had hash or similar in her carry on, only to find it was a Christmas Pudding. And I am sure they could have shown some sympathy for someone who was here for a funeral.

​

…. and all grannies are now assumed to be like the kombi grannies, unless proven otherwise?

 

[Daver6]

No way! I have no desire to visit Israel at all.

Just because you seem to have an issue with visiting Israel as evidenced in both this and other threads, does not detract from the accuracy of pyffii's statement. Your suggesting he/she is incorrect, yet have not visited. We get that you have no desire to visit based on preconceived misconceptions.

 

[Daver6]

I’ve read that as soon as you book a flight then your travel records are deeply scrutinised. Not just what is in your current passport. So they know what to ask when you arrive and leave. I’ve heard leaving is worse than entry. We may also end up on an El Al flight so I’m just preparing.

You're over thinking/worrying. It really isn't that bad. They'll ask a few questions and you just answer honestly. It really is no big deal and much less intimidating than US CBP. The Israelis are total professionals.

 

[love_the_life]

Just because you seem to have an issue with visiting Israel as evidenced in both this and other threads, does not detract from the accuracy of pyffii's statement. Your suggesting he/she is incorrect, yet have not visited. We get that you have no desire to visit based on preconceived misconceptions.

No I am not disagreeing with the veracity of pyffi ‘s comment regarding security but I do disagree that the country (or more accurately TA) should be on my/everyone’s bucket list.

 

[pyffii]

No way! I have no desire to visit Israel at all.

If you discard your preconceived bias you will be more than pleasantly surprised.

 

[OATEK]

…. and all grannies are now assumed to be like the kombi grannies, unless proven otherwise?

From time to time, yes, grannies will come under suspicion. Not all. Not all the time, but yes, sometimes.

 

[drron]

Whether you like it or not Border force has the right to interrogate you.
It has the right to seize your phone.
It says no search is random.
Here's how much power Border Force has to search your phone

The OP says his sister was a frequent flyer.Not hard to imagine US authorities being interested in why an Australian citizen was leaving the US frequently.Not hard to imagine them asking Australian authorities to intervene before she landed in the US.
Border Force don''t have to divulge the exact reason why you are being questioned.