Originally Posted by
Pendergast
But Racial Profiling and Targeting by captains, airlines and private contractors like ICTS, is also an offense. There aren't just offensen on board the aircraft, but also on the ground at the airports.
What do you mean by uncomfortable? Like Americans with black skin and/or black hair, and not having the name Brian Smith (two names that aren't American by the way, since Brian is Irish and Smith is German)?
A captain then has to explain how these types of Americans make her/him uncomfortable. At the same time, no captain can't deny a US-Citizen readmittance to their homeland. You're basically repeated what I said but with different words. Lift vs elevator. When I wrote that the captain can't deny you boarding without "probable cause", this is in principal the same thing as that a captain's decision of denying a passenger boarding can't just be arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, didn't say file a litigate the aircraft, how can you bring an aircraft to a courthouse, it's a little bit too big, don't you think? Plus aircrafts don't talk. I'm referring to the airline. That captain, who denied a non-criminal US-citizen readmittance/access to their homeland just because she/he had an itch, obviously works for an airline. Any airline, whether it was the captain's decision or ICTS's, can be legally sued for not allowing a law abiding US-citizen with a valid US passport boarding a US-bound flight. Not answering question about what I do in my homeland as an American returning from vacation, or who my parents are and what I do for a living don't warrant denial of boarding an aircraft.
The title of this thread specifies travels to the USA. An airline doesn't have to transport a US-citizen to another country, but when it comes to US-citizens being denied boarding a US-bound flight, any American can legally sue that airline for not allowing him/her return to his/her homeland, that is the USA wherein that US-citizen resides. Again, I'm not talking about criminals, including those who cause havoc or any other disturbance of the public order.
Also, the Code says "enter". It doesn't mention or specify at what/which point. Therefore, it could hypothetically mean entering the US by boarding a US-bound flight.
[MENTION=160992]Pen[/MENTION]dergrast - I suspect you are not a native American English speaker and that may be the cause of some miscommunication in this conversation. And I suspect you, like most people, have an incomplete understanding of the legal system in the US. (And while I have some training and considerable knowledge, I am not a legal expert, either).
In the US, "probable cause" is a legal term in
criminal law regarding the actions of government agents. It does not apply to actions of non-government persons/institutions in matters at civil law (aviation and border control/immigration). But I think your point is well-taken that an airline cannot deny boarding capriciously or for prohibited reasons, and that common courtesy and customer service principles dictate it should have to provide a "legitimate" reason for denying boarding. But I am unaware of any law/regulation that requires a reason be given.
You are absolutely correct that an airline is not permitted to deny boarding based on prohibited reasons (such as religion, sex, ethnicity, color of skin). Yes, absolutely, a person who believes he was denied boarding based on a prohibited reason may file a lawsuit seeking a remedy or recovery of damages caused by the denied boarding. But the US legal system is not based on fairness or justice but on law and filing a lawsuit is far away from winning; such a lawsuit could take years (not to mention tremendous amounts of money) to be resolved.
It is very clear you strongly believe that an airline company (through the decisions/actions of its employees/contractors) not allowing someone to board one of its airplanes physically located in one country whose destination is the USA is a denial of the US Constitutional right of a US citizen (or LPR) to enter the US. However, irregardless [sic] of the strength of your belief, your belief is simply incorrect. We have explained why and have provided you with citations of the decisions by US federal courts on exactly these issues. You might wish for a different reality but wishing does not make it so.
In the US, only a duly sworn Immigration Officer (an employee of the US Government) can make a decision on the admissibility and authorization to enter into the US. Employees/contractors of airlines simply cannot ever make such decisions and as we have pointed out, denying boarding is simply not the same thing as denying entry.
Yes, for sure, hypothetically, "enter"
could mean "boarding an airplane in France equals entering the United States." But by definition a hypothetical is not reality. In reality, the law defines entering the country as physically crossing over the border. Boarding a plane that is in Paris, France, and headed for the US simply is not the equivalent of crossing over the physical boundaries of the United States. Again, one might wish for a different reality, but that does not change reality.
You stated an airline is not allowed to deny boarding to a citizen. Not only are airlines permitted to deny boarding, but airlines
are required by US law and regulation to deny boarding to any person the airline has reason to believe is not eligible for entry or admission into the United States. The burden is on the person to prove eligibility; the burden is NOT on the airline to prove the passenger is not eligible. In addition, airlines are permitted, and in some cases required, to deny boarding to any person the airline believes poses a security risk to the flight and for a variety of other reasons having nothing to do with security (such as: having sold more tickets than seats that exist on the plane, or the passenger appears intoxicated; or the person is in ill-health).
You mention criminals
("That captain, who denied a non-criminal US-citizen readmittance/access to their homeland just because she/he had an itch, obviously works for an airline. Any airline, whether it was the captain's decision or ICTS's, can be legally sued for not allowing a law abiding US-citizen with a valid US passport boarding a US-bound flight") which brings up two interesting, related topics. If I am understanding you correctly (and please correct me if I am not), you are implying that an airline is permitted to deny boarding, and an Immigration Officer is permitted to deny entry, to a US Citizen who is a criminal. Both of these ideas are incorrect. Thousands of thousands of persons, who have been charged with, or have been convicted of, crimes are flown around and in and out of the country every day. The mere fact of a charge/indictment or actual conviction of a criminal charge is not in and of itself a permissible reason to deny boarding nor is it an acceptable reason to deny a citizen entry into the country.
Originally Posted by
Xyzzy
You can certainly sue -- but under the circumstanced described here that will be well after the aircraft leaves without you.
You do not enter the US simply by boarding a US-bound flight. That doesn't even happen in US-preclearance facilities where passengers are still under the jurisdiction of the h🍁st country while in the preclearance area even after clearing US CBP.
Side bar: similarly, when a citizen of one country enters an embassy of his country while in another country the citizen is not actually in his home country. For example: when a UK citizen enters the UK embassy in Washington DC, the UK citizen has not entered the United Kingdom (even though, according to international law and treaty, the host country agrees to treat the embassy grounds as the sovereign territory of the guest country).