[arcticbull]

It doesn't really matter which crossing, IME, you may always encounter a power-tripping officer, and officers at each kind of entry port have the same power. I've been waved through no questions asked at land crossings, pulled into secondary and interviewed by 6 officers in pairs of 2 at an air crossing - and vice versa. Ultimately, admission is at the discretion of the officers unless you're a citizen. Even a green card holder can be denied re-entry on the basis that they 'abandoned their residency.'

[Maciek416]

Understood -- the big multinational I was working for employed an immigration law firm that tracked many such crossings, and they practically begged me not to try crossing by land based on their statistics (which suggested a higher probability of trouble in land crossings). I joined that statistic and learned to never take any chances with any part of this.

[arcticbull]

Very interesting, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks!

[tough]

In a more practical sense look at it this way, at a land crossing they can just toss you over. game over. thats it.

If you flew in on a plane, they have to get you deported which costs money and energy.

Also they will assume you have more capital if you come by plane than land and thus ask less questions.

[arcticbull]

Speaking from a Canadian perspective, US flights from Canadian airports (and a select few others) almost exclusively go through pre-clearance. This means you do US customs and immigration on Canadian soil before boarding your flight into the US, and the plane lands in the US as a domestic flight. It's not much different than a land border.

> If you flew in on a plane, they have to get you deported which costs money and energy.

Being denied entry can be quite summary, no proceedings, for most people. Admission is broadly at the discretion of the border officer and recourse for most people is either heavily limited or just straight up zero.

Note that for flights from non-preclearance countries, the airlines are fined if you're not admitted (averaging $3500 at the time of writing but I think closer to $10000 now). I believe they're responsible for paying your way back too. [1] In fact I think USCIS even tried to fine United after paroling a traveler during a transit that wouldn't have otherwise been permitted.

[1] https://airlines.iata.org/2016/10/13/document-verification-t...

[jkaplowitz]

> Even a green card holder can be denied re-entry on the basis that they 'abandoned their residency.'

I don't believe CBP is allowed to deny a green card holder entry on this basis if you provide any evidence that amounts to a colorable claim of being an LPR, such as a physical green card. They are allowed to pressure you to officially give up your status by convincing you to sign an I-407, but you have the right to decline that and insist on being let into the country because you believe you did not abandon your residency. In turn, CBP could choose to refer you to an immigration judge, but this would still involve letting you in.

If they do want to bother with the referral, CBP would take the physical green card, give you alternate proof of status, give you a Notice To Appear for removal proceedings before an immigration judge, and let you in with all the same rights as any other green card holder on a tentative basis. Yes, the immigration judge would still revoke permanent residency if you are found to have abandoned your residency, but you have the chance to involve your immigration lawyer and argue your case before the immigration courts. And there might be a long wait before you even get the court date in the first place.

I am not a lawyer or other immigration professional and am speaking generally here based on general information. If you think you might be in a situation where this would happen to you, consult an actual professional for proper legal advice applicable to your case.

[klipt]

> Even a green card holder can be denied re-entry on the basis that they 'abandoned their residency.'

If you're actually living in the US and just taking occasional vacations abroad this is extremely unlikely.

Where people get caught out is when they're trying to basically snowbird between two countries while still on a green card. In that case it's better to first serve your 6 years in the US to earn citizenship. Then you're free to go anywhere anytime you want.

[arcticbull]

If you want to 'snowbird' like that without waiting for (or ever planning to get) citizenship, you can apply for an I-327 Re-Entry Permit. [1]

You can apply with form I-131 and like $575.

While it can take 3-12 months to process, if you apply more than 60 days before travel and complete your biometrics appointment, you can leave and pick it up at a foreign embassy or consulate. This helps you avoid the presumption that you abandoned your US residency.

[1] https://rjimmigrationlaw.com/resources/what-is-a-re-entry-pe...

[afavour]

> extremely unlikely

Very true. But the point the OP is making is that your entire fate is in the hands of a CBP officer and they are a very, very mixed bunch.

I repeat OP's advice to avoid a land crossing, I'm not sure exactly what it is but I suspect partly that land crossings have much less time pressure. I've had my car pulled over and partly taken apart looking for "anything suspicious". We were two men in our mid twenties and I think the agents were just bored, honestly.

[adave]

That will mean paying taxes and these snowbirds want to skip that.

[klipt]

Green card holders already have to pay taxes overseas, same as citizens.

[pkaye]

> Even a green card holder can be denied re-entry on the basis that they 'abandoned their residency.

Its fine if you stay outside of you for less than 1 year. Beyond that you should get a reentry permit before you leave.

https://help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-820?language=en_US

[arcticbull]

After 180 days you're deemed to be seeking a new admission under INA 101(a)(13)(C) which means you're subject to the grounds of inadmissibility on that basis alone. [1] And after 1 year away, it's not a "you should get a REP" it's a "you definitely have to unless you have a medical reason for not being able to come back sooner because they won't let you in without a returning resident visa."

> A permanent resident (called lawful permanent resident or LPR) or conditional resident (CR) who has remained outside the United States for longer than one year, or beyond the validity period of a Re-entry Permit, will require a new immigrant visa to enter the United States and resume permanent residence. A provision exists under U.S. visa law for the issuance of a returning resident special immigrant visa to an LPR who remained outside the United States due to circumstances beyond his/her control. [2]

More than 6 months interrupts your continuous residency for citizenship purposes unless can defend your continued residency during that period, and I am led to believe a REP helps.

Personally I'd err on the side of caution and say if you're regularly away for long periods or if you plan to be away for more than 6 months, it's probably worth the REP. I think any extended or regular absences should probably be regarded with a little more weight than 'it's fine' although most people probably do. If I were gone for more than 6 months I'd expect a pretty significant grilling.

[1] https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/sample-pdf/inadmiss...

[2] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat...