Spiff

Don't care. That's not CBP's job.

I'm really not concerned. All people not currently incarcerated should be free to come and go as they please.

GUWonder

Indeed, even as the discussion got fueled by the US treating US citizens in an Orwellian Animal Farmesque way: "all free US citizens are equal, but some free US citizens are more equal than other free US citizens".

GE-enrolled persons with such issues are already dealt with by CBP. The same approach could be applicable even with GE enrollment being automatic for all free US persons with a valid US passport.

cottonmather0

Exactly.

TomBrady

This is one viewpoint. But at this point why have CBP anyway. Why not just get rid of all checks. No need for immigration or anything. Just fly in from anywhere and your in the US, no visas necessary. Fugitives, terrorist, Other people who would normally be denied entry for whatever reason all would have easy access.

Can you see the problems this might cause?


I do not believe that you should be able to just come into the country without any type of passport check or customs check. I stand by my earlier comments about who should be eligible for GE and you are welcome to disagree with that. But I think most can agree there should be some checking done at the border.

Often1

All rubbish and a bunch of hypotheticals. OP was less than forthcoming and, if he wasn't sure, only had to say something such as, "it's been a long time and I'm not certain." But, that's not what he did.

Judges in this country instruct jurors every day that if they find that a witness has been untruthful as to one fact, they may disbelieve that witness on all other facts.

Nothing different here. OP wasn't "forthcoming" so CBP disbelieves him.

Not Orwellian or anything bad. Just the way informed choices are made by Officers every day.

GUWonder

Duplicate

GUWonder

"All rubbish and a bunch of hypotheticals"? Couldn't the same be said for the above? Yes.

"All rubbish and a bunch of hypotheticals"? Couldn't the same be said for the above? Yes.

Something different here.

Treating some free US persons as less equal than other free US persons is Orwellian Animal Farmesque: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than other animals". This kind of situation is also Kafkaesque of sort.
Orwellian Animal Farmesque still, whether or not of the opinion that tries to justify the status quo or to play government apologist. It is something bad, even if others find it great.

.... informed choices made by prejudiced officers. That Orwellian Animal Farmesque behavior is done by DHS doesn't mean the approach is great and beyond deserving criticism and change.

Spiff

No.

And I really don't care. I believe in open borders. CBP should do one of the few the government is actually charged with doing: protect the borders from attack (a real one, not some movie fantasy). Other than that, free migration across borders should be the norm for all nations. We're going to eventually have a single government on the planet, might as well get started and set a good example for what a free society and planet is really all about.

Often1

Zero evidence that the Officer was "prejudiced". In fact, quite the contrary. All the evidence -- and that's taking OP's own words -- is that OP was less than forthcoming and that's what the Officer found.

The answer to something you don't know for certain is, "I'm not certain." Untruths are just that. Untrue.

nmstough

There were plenty of times I said "I wasn't certain". The officer acted like I should have known everything. So for one arrest he asked what happened. I reported in laymans terms what happened. Then he said what about this charge/count? I said it was nonsense and was dismissed (that was the one about not wearing passenger restraints while riding a bike). Then asked what other counts were. I didn't remember and said so. After all more than 10 years ago and dismissed.

At no point was I untruthful. The denial for being "less than forthcoming" is too vague and I would argue not a proper reason for denial - without more specifics.

I_Can_Fly_US_Airways

You have a criminal back ground & are complaining about NOT being let into the Trusted Traveler Program?

GUWonder

Actually there is evidence that the CBP's way of dealing with applicants for GE is based on prejudice and this thread is but another example of how prejudice results in free US citizens with passports being treated as unequals by the US government.

Orwellian Animal Farmesque governmental hypocrisy, as relates to this "trusted traveler" program, has its defenders/advocates. I won't be one of those advocates of Orwellian Animal Farmesque governmental hypocrisy that don't believe all free US citizens should be treated as equals in the eyes of the government.

GUWonder

Don't many, perhaps even most, of the people who pushed for this "trusted traveler" nonsense have criminal backgrounds? Almost certainly even if some don't want to buy that for even a New York minute. Even most members of Congress have violated at least two federal laws. Arrest and convictions aren't always the best measure of who does and does not have a criminal background. Regardless of background, free US citizens should all be considered equals in the eyes of the government when it comes to freedom of movement. That, or we should just admit that we are fans of Orwellian Animal Farmesque governmental hypocrisy when it comes to people's freedom/rights of movement. Certainly this kind of Orwellian governmental approach to dealing with people is evident in Kafkaesque ways across US airports -- the GE implementation being yet another example of this.

ramsfan7784

I was denied because of a Misdemeanor conviction for 6 years ago Im getting it expunged from my record. I have to pay 100$ again and reapply will they give me GE with it being expunged they already know it was there from my 1st interview? I have the document saying it was expunged.
Any advice from someone who has been through a similar situation would be great

Thank in advance

nrr

From info I've read in other posts here on FT: after you get the conviction expunged, instead of reapplying, try to contact the OMBUDSMAN, it may save you paying an extra $100.