Originally Posted by
drewguy
Not really - rather, the point is merely that the background check and past conduct doesn't identify the likelihood of future bad conduct with 100% accuracy.
But if 0.01% of people with a clean record are planning "future bad conduct" (by which I mean terrorism, drug-running, gun-running, not a banana) then the background check can be 99.99% accurate in predicting future conduct while still missing all the actual Bad Guys. It's exactly the 0.01% that the background check misses that we should be worried about.
Originally Posted by
drewguy
Of course that's true - people using GE still forget and bring bananas back, and may try to do so intentionally. That's just part of the program.
There's a big difference between "forgot a banana" and "intentionally smuggled bananas". The first is jetlag or ignorance or lack of attention; the second is deliberately breaking a law. Also, I'm guessing that people rarely forget a whole box of fruit or intentionally smuggle a single piece, so the quantity is probably a good test of intent.
Originally Posted by
drewguy
The hook is the penalties are more severe.
Only if they find something. And it only really penalizes the forgetful. Do you think the serious agricultural smuggler, or drug mule or gun runner or guy with bomb, thinks "Rats, there goes my GE status!" if they get caught?
Originally Posted by
drewguy
And I'm not sure that the odds of successfully running a smuggling operation for something valuable are that much better. Say you're bringing drugs - if you're low risk and don't have GE you still could probably get away with it without a search. Of course, assuming the dogs or pigs or whatever sniffs out the drugs don't figure it out, and they're going to alert on the bags whether you're GE or not.
And here's the key point - if someone
without GE can get away with smuggling drugs as easily as someone
with GE, then what's the point of GE? If (most) non-GE passengers aren't searched, and if dogs will alert on GE and non-GE alike, then why not treat everyone as GE instead of pretending that those who pay for GE are somehow special?
Similarly for TSA and PreCheck. If the security screening that PreCheck passengers receive - including the random element of occasional deeper scrutiny - is sufficient for those who have passed a background check but may be planning something nefarious in the future, or for those who are randomly sent to the PreCheck line, why not make that the standard screening for everyone?
Originally Posted by
drewguy
Like many people here I've been through customs many dozen times. I don't recall being searched more than once or twice (including once with GE). Why? Probably because I have nothing suspicious in my background, including suspicious travel patterns (e.g., weekly flights to Colombia), my travels generally haven't been to countries known for smuggling, and perhaps some luck. GE hasn't really changed that - just that I can skip the lines.
I think you're making my point for me. You were searched once with GE and (perhaps) once - or (perhaps) never - before you had GE. GE does not exempt anyone from random searches, nor, it appears, does lack of GE guarantee more frequent searches, all else being equal. CBP can (and I'll bet they do) still decide to place a higher scrutiny on someone with "suspicious travel patterns" whether they have GE or not.
Out of well over 100 passes through customs/immigration in countries around the world, I've only been searched once (and that was just my luggage). I was entering the USA on a US passport and the CBP guy took personal offence to the fact that I had chosen to live in Another Country Which Is Not America. I'm reasonably confident that Patriotic CBP Guy would send my luggage for the full treatment even if I had GE.
So, if every passenger knew they had a random chance of being searched, what is the benefit of GE (to the passenger)? What is the additional risk (to the country) of treating everyone the same?