Fact Check: C.B.P. has full discretion to exclude travelers arbitrarily.

Fact Check: "C.B.P. has full discretion to exclude travelers arbitrarily."

What We Know

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) does have significant discretion when it comes to the exclusion of travelers at ports of entry. According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (source-5), officers at primary inspection possess broad authority to refer travelers for secondary inspection, which can occur with or without any suspicion of wrongdoing. This indicates that CBP agents have considerable leeway in determining who may be subject to further scrutiny.

Additionally, the CBP Decisions (source-2) document states that the Secretary, acting through CBP, retains the discretion to revoke a travel authorization determination at any time. This further supports the assertion that CBP has the authority to make discretionary decisions regarding traveler exclusion.

However, the term "arbitrarily" implies a lack of guidelines or standards governing this discretion. The Federal Travel Regulation (source-3) outlines that while agencies have discretion over travel expenses, it does not explicitly address the arbitrary nature of CBP's exclusion decisions.

Analysis

The claim that CBP has "full discretion to exclude travelers arbitrarily" is partially supported by the available evidence. The broad discretion mentioned in CBP's operational guidelines and the ability to revoke travel authorizations suggest that CBP can make exclusion decisions without needing to meet a specific standard of evidence or suspicion.

However, the use of the word "arbitrarily" raises questions about the standards and processes that govern these discretionary actions. While CBP does have significant authority, it is also bound by laws and regulations that aim to ensure that such discretion is not exercised without justification. For instance, the Border Search of Electronic Devices at Ports of Entry (source-4) indicates that while officers have discretion, there are still protocols in place that guide their actions.

The reliability of the sources varies. The official CBP documents (source-1, source-2, source-5) are credible as they come directly from the agency responsible for border protection. However, the interpretation of "arbitrary" may depend on individual perspectives on what constitutes fair discretion versus capricious decision-making.

Conclusion

Needs Research. While there is evidence that CBP has significant discretion in excluding travelers, the claim that this discretion is exercised "arbitrarily" requires further investigation. The term implies a lack of oversight or guidelines, which may not fully reflect the operational realities of CBP's decision-making processes. More comprehensive analysis and additional sources would be needed to clarify the extent and nature of CBP's discretion in traveler exclusion.

Fact Check: C.B.P. has full discretion to exclude travelers arbitrarily.