UK may allow US security checks on passengers before transatlantic travel
Sep 15, 2014, 3:56 pm
#31
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 360
lol
Sep 15, 2014, 4:18 pm
#32
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Given US paranoia is driving this push for US CBP PreClearance in Europe, the Europeans should let the US Government pay the full price for this junk, in terms of facilities build-out, maintenance and staffing costs and for displaced revenue losses. Unfortunately this means passengers flying from these airport to the US will end up ultimately footing the bill for having their time wasted even more by the US CBP.
Later on the day of the above post, this became clear in the public domain too:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/m...ghting-for-isi
The Administration wants to push out US border and other enforcement measures to: (a) further limit VWP country and/or US nationals from flying from (or via) Europe and possibly arriving in the US without the US physically vetting the passengers prior to flight; and (b) further limit people from less developed countries from arriving in the US and claiming asylum/refugee status.
Amongst other things, this US pursuit is meant to reduce: the possibility of the US aviation blacklists from being as readily evaded; and the possibility of fraudulent use of real passports to travel to the US.
I am not surprised our UK government lapdog agreed to this. I hope the other EU countries tell us to go pound sand rather than even taking steps to let us pay up for it in part or full (for then the US will just end up charging us more to travel internationally by hiking fees).
As long as the governments are having airport security screeners properly focusing on and engaging in effective interdiction of contraband weapons, explosives and incendiaries ("WEI") (via screening passengers, bags, cargo and other conveyance), and as long as the cockpits are secure, then I don't really care who is on my flight. Any bad actors missed by European authorities can be stopped without doing these CBP pre-clearance build outs -- stopped on arrival in the US and by effectively screening for WEIs prior to departure.
.....
The reason Canada and the US went for CBP PreClearance was to further integration of the Canada-US passenger airline networks and to try to make things more convenient for passengers. This US push in Europe for this kind of facility is motivated by the government's paranoia; it is not motivated by an interest in making travel easier/faster.
Amongst other things, this US pursuit is meant to reduce: the possibility of the US aviation blacklists from being as readily evaded; and the possibility of fraudulent use of real passports to travel to the US.
I am not surprised our UK government lapdog agreed to this. I hope the other EU countries tell us to go pound sand rather than even taking steps to let us pay up for it in part or full (for then the US will just end up charging us more to travel internationally by hiking fees).
As long as the governments are having airport security screeners properly focusing on and engaging in effective interdiction of contraband weapons, explosives and incendiaries ("WEI") (via screening passengers, bags, cargo and other conveyance), and as long as the cockpits are secure, then I don't really care who is on my flight. Any bad actors missed by European authorities can be stopped without doing these CBP pre-clearance build outs -- stopped on arrival in the US and by effectively screening for WEIs prior to departure.
.....
The reason Canada and the US went for CBP PreClearance was to further integration of the Canada-US passenger airline networks and to try to make things more convenient for passengers. This US push in Europe for this kind of facility is motivated by the government's paranoia; it is not motivated by an interest in making travel easier/faster.
Originally Posted by Publication
During an event organised on Thursday at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) – the CFR is the country’s leading think thank on foreign affairs – in New York, Jeh Charles Johnson, the US Secretary of Homeland Security, spelt out several measures aimed at pro-actively deterring and preventing the entry of potential extremists into the country.
Johnson stressed that in the long term, the Department of Homeland Security was pursuing pre-clearance at overseas airports with flights to the United States.
“This means inspection by a US customs officer and enhanced aviation security before a passenger gets on the plane to the United States,” he said.
“We now have pre-clearance at airports in Dublin, Shannon, the United Arab Emirates, Canada, and the Caribbean. I regard it as a homeland security imperative to build more,” he said, adding: “I want to take every opportunity we have to expand homeland security beyond our borders.”
Johnson stressed that in the long term, the Department of Homeland Security was pursuing pre-clearance at overseas airports with flights to the United States.
“This means inspection by a US customs officer and enhanced aviation security before a passenger gets on the plane to the United States,” he said.
“We now have pre-clearance at airports in Dublin, Shannon, the United Arab Emirates, Canada, and the Caribbean. I regard it as a homeland security imperative to build more,” he said, adding: “I want to take every opportunity we have to expand homeland security beyond our borders.”
Last edited by GUWonder; Sep 15, 2014 at 4:26 pm
Sep 15, 2014, 10:15 pm
#33
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Programs: Landry's President's Club, Marriott Silver, Awesomeness EXPLT
Posts: 20,408
I think Pre-Clearance makes sense from Canadian airports since it then allows n/s flights to LGA and DCA which couldn't happen otherwise. From Europe unless we're going to see a magical LGA-LHR flight(even with a stop in BOS) I really don't see the point of it except to push the border outward. I really don't see anyone in the EU beyond Ireland and the UK being alright with having CBP on their soil after recent events.
Cheers
Howie
Cheers
Howie
Sep 15, 2014, 10:23 pm
#34
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I think Pre-Clearance makes sense from Canadian airports since it then allows n/s flights to LGA and DCA which couldn't happen otherwise. From Europe unless we're going to see a magical LGA-LHR flight(even with a stop in BOS) I really don't see the point of it except to push the border outward. I really don't see anyone in the EU beyond Ireland and the UK being alright with having CBP on their soil after recent events.
Cheers
Howie
Cheers
Howie
It is wanted -- to use the words of the head of the US DHS -- to "expand [US] homeland security beyond our [US] borders" and prevent presumed-guilty "extremists" from flying to the US even if admissible to the US.
The US doesn't want 100,000 or more Iraqi or Syrian Christians, Yazidis, Muslims, or atheists showing up in the US on a stolen/misused passport claiming asylum in the US. "Extremists" include people not willing to follow passport rules while exercising the right to asylum. And yet Sweden -- with a population akin to Minnesota and Wisconsin combined -- is preparing for that in the next couple of years, even as "we broke it" "we [should] own it" since our invasion of Iraq in 2003. Pottery Barn rule, according to Colin Powell.
Last edited by GUWonder; Sep 15, 2014 at 10:37 pm
Sep 18, 2014, 7:01 am
#35
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
That's a bit inaccurate. There is a different 4th amendment "reasonableness" standard for border searches, but you still have 1st, 4th & 5th amendment rights to shut up. (If you're not a citizen though, you don't have the right to be let in.)
Sep 28, 2014, 2:25 pm
#36
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 360
LPR s would disagree with you
Sep 28, 2014, 3:36 pm
#37
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Sep 29, 2014, 12:49 am
#38
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 288
It's much more than "a bit" inaccurate, it's completely wrong. CBP keeps trying to promote this false notion that US law does not apply until you have been admitted, but with exception of the precedent establishing the border search exemption to the 4th Amendment, the courts have consistently rejected this view. It's also obviously false -- if I were to land at a US airport and kill a CBP officer before I had been stamped into the country, would CBP decline to arrest me because "US law does not apply?" If I was charged, would I not have a right to due process, or I could I simply be held without trial?
Sep 29, 2014, 10:44 am
#39
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 360
Sep 29, 2014, 2:25 pm
#40
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
The UK has been for some time the b***h of the Uncle Sam.
Oct 2, 2014, 2:25 am
#41
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: HEL
Programs: lots of shiny metal cards
Posts: 14,105
Oct 2, 2014, 12:16 pm
#42
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
They often say man's best friend is a dog. The UK is a reliable lap dog for the US when it comes to most US "security" requests, and the UK has been so for quite some time. No more reliable "friend" than the UK when it comes to US "security" games.
Oct 6, 2014, 5:38 pm
#43
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 311
As a European citizen I'd rather identify any issues with the US immigration while still in Europe. I can be denied boarding, but not locked up. In addition if I pass through in DUB the US inspectors would deal with a lot of Irish people and familiar with things I tell them.
Oct 6, 2014, 5:58 pm
#44
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan, IHG, Enterprise, Avios, Nexus
Posts: 8,355
That's a very good point I hadn't thought of. When I go through pre-clearance in Canada my reasons for going through are most likely similar to many other travellers. So when I say, "Yeah, going down to Dunedin to watch the Jays at spring training," I am probably not the only one who said that in the last hour.
Oct 7, 2014, 1:21 am
#45
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
But of course your transfer in the US would be much more efficient. Swings and roundabouts.
As a European citizen I'd rather identify any issues with the US immigration while still in Europe. I can be denied boarding, but not locked up. In addition if I pass through in DUB the US inspectors would deal with a lot of Irish people and familiar with things I tell them.
As a European citizen I'd rather identify any issues with the US immigration while still in Europe. I can be denied boarding, but not locked up. In addition if I pass through in DUB the US inspectors would deal with a lot of Irish people and familiar with things I tell them.
I can't say that CBP questioning time per Irish citizens at DUB is any quicker than CBP questioning time per Irish citizen arriving at JFK on a flight from LHR. In my experience, the questioning at PreClearance takes up just as much time or more, and the chatting tends to be longer if only because of the greater chance for small-talk that slows things down.
For example, a naturalized U.S. citizen CBP employee at a US CBP PreClearance airport knew that I was a personal acquaintance of his birth country's head of state and head of government, both of whom he liked a lot. That was the longest exchange I've ever had as a tourist standing with CBP when presenting myself for the trip home; and it slowed things down substantially for others while we engaged in small talk.
About being locked up, that can and has been done sometimes anyway after the long-haul flight.
I can see how the very tiny sliver of a percentage of VWP country citizens denied admission on arrival in the US may want to be denied admission prior to a/another long-haul flight; but not all will get that with this either, as in some cases this will make it worse. Example: as with when someone flies from South America/Asia/Europe to YYZ expecting to be en route to the US thereafter and then ends up being denied admission in the US and is also not necessarily admissible in Canada. All that said, building out a much more expensive infrastructure to cater to outliers makes little to no sense, and yet that is being used to support an expansion of such things?
Last edited by GUWonder; Oct 7, 2014 at 1:32 am