Spiff

Sadly, no. We have a spinless Congress.

Not true at all. Not questioning does not mean not observing. And I am very, very pleased with my intra-EU border crossings and am also relatively pleased with my EU entry experiences. I am seldom questioned and my passport is quickly stamped. UK (supposedly part of EU) has been less satisfactory with occasional intrusive questioning but I don't visit or transit UK anymore so moot point there. I would prefer that the EU not have exit controls as they are abhorrent to freedom. If you wish to leave a nation and are not currently incarcerated, you should be free to do so.

Hassles aside, no questioning and no biometrics is what I shall continue to advocate.

Often1

OP was not denied GE for having a record, he was denied for "not being forthcoming". He can spend some time seriously studying all of his various arrests and negative encounters with law enforcement here and in Canada and then be prepared for an interview with a supervisor/ombudsman if he can make one happen. Maybe OP can convince such a person that he is a forthcoming person.

This one isn't about who had their seatbelt on, it's about whether a person who isn't forthcoming with CBP about his record, will be forthcoming when a machine asks whether he's bringing contraband into the country.

TomBrady

I'm totally OK with making GE just for the cleanest of records. IF you have any questionable activity in your past, you should not be cleared for global entry.

Everyone with a passport should not have it.

GUWonder

Most college-educated American males have violated one or more federal laws. Not the cleanest of records means that most of the current lot of GE-enabled males just got lucky.

Always Flyin

And the person who has so many arrests they can't remember them all was just unlucky?

GUWonder

Some free persons get arrested so much on questionable grounds that remembering all arrests would require a lot of luck.

Are people who are GE-enabled afraid of GE lines slowing them down (further) and/or of looking as if less "elite" were this hypocrtical sham of "trusted traveler" scrapped and all free US persons with US passports enabled for GE processing?

nmstough

Yes, that's right; it was about "not being forthcoming". That's awfully vague. It was not about lying or being dishonest. Everything I said was true. And not having any sort of record of ever lied to a border agent or having brought illegal items into the country in the over 100 times I have crossed the US border ought to count for something.

I answered every question in the interview honestly. I didn't volunteer any information I wasn't asked about. Whats wrong with that? When you enter the country and are questioned by an agent you just answer what you are asked. You don't go off on tangents about things you weren't asked about.

What would be a fair process is if the interviewing agent would hand the interviewee a printout of what he is looking at so that the interviewee would have the same information. What goes on presently is like being tried in court without a list of the charges one is facing.

Its un-American.

cottonmather0

This is a fair criticism and seems sensible to me. While the interview is still mostly just about evaluating the applicant's demeanor, I can remember from my own interview that I had no idea what the interviewer was looking at on his screen and that it did make me more nervous than I would have been otherwise.

That said, the counterargument to that would be that I should already known what's on his screen, so I should be forthcoming with answers. I have never been arrested, so perhaps it's harder if you have a longer record from far in the past. Can't make a judgment there.

TomBrady

Your attitude on this forum seems to do nothing but justify why you were rejected. I can see the point about not going off on tangents about stuff not asked. But if you are asked about your police record, you better know everything about it, especially anything rising above a speeding violation. Now if it was a underage drinking summons you got 15 years ago, maybe I could see your point. But anything else you should know, and saying I don't recall or really remember I would have dinged you on the spot too.

I dis-agree, you don't need to know what they have on the screen. They ask a question, tell them the truth. Who cares what they have on the screen, your answers should not change regardless of whats on the screen or if you know in advance. Its not like being in court or any of the other things you compared it too. And its completely American as in you have the FREEDOM to not go through this process. No one is forcing you to sign up for GE. If you don't like the process or the questions, don't do it. Your coming off as if you have things to hide.

Always Flyin

Oh, please. That is just ridiculous.

It is a trust based system based on past conduct. If the U.S. was required to open it up to everyone, they would disband the system.

It is not just about expedited immigration, which is far less of a problem with allowing all U.S. citizens to use. As anyone who has Global Entry knows, it is also about getting a pass through Customs as well on most occasions (every time for me in about 50-entries). That's where the trust factor comes in.

It's not that I am concerned about others getting Global Entry, I just don't want to see a situation where everyone loses it.

TomBrady

I concur

Im confused what do you mean everyone loses it?

GUWonder

Only as ridiculous as it is real. Reality sometimes is ridiculous. Case in point, US airports.


Wishful thinking? There is no certainty that GE type processing wouldn't be disbanded absent that opening, nor is there certainty that it would be disbanded if opened to all free US citizens with a valid US passport.

That's not news to me or anyone else who is critical of this Orwellian Animal Farmesque "trusted traveler" nonsense that DHS is doing to free US persons. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other animals".

As if "trusted travelers" aren't daily violators of US laws and regulations, including customs and Ag rules -- probably more frequent violators and less frequently caught than infrequent flyers with no criminal convictions since we travel more than non-GE passengers in the main.

GE type processing may or may not be lost regardless, but is everyone is entitled to it that has a valid US passport and is free to travel then you are far less likely to see a situation where everyone loses it. Minority's "entitlements"(and even rights) are easier to eliminate than majority's rights or entitlements. If you want to secure GE type processing's future against government elimination or other restrictions, it's more robustly done by having the majority having the same rights and entitlements as the favored minority of the day.

Silver Fox

GE is not just for US passport holders. Carry on.

Spiff

Everyone should be assumed to be trustworthy unless there are indications to the contrary.

CBP should not be permitted to choose whether to disband the system. Congress should order them to both make it the rule, not the exception, and force them to not only retain it but expand it. No interviews, no biometrics, just wave the passport and come on in. Or don't wave the passport. I'm fine with that option too.

nrr

One function the CBP performs, is checking returnees for outstanding arrest warrants, child support arrears and other similar infractions. So merely waving a passport at the agent would not flag these people, nor would it weed out people with fake pp's, nor would it be able to associate people with their real passports.