You weren't arrested once.

You were arrested multiple time to the extent that you can't even recall all the arrests.

Since the overwhelming super-majority of people will never be arrested, IMHO, someone with your colorful history most certainly should be denied participation in a trust based system.

For those who claim every U.S. citizen should be given Global Entry, I live in the real world. In that world, that will never happen. If anyone suggested that it should, the response would be to cancel the program. I prefer disqualifying objectively suspect applicants. That's the real world.

No problem with that. Disqualifying *objectively* suspect applicants. What do you think objective means? In the US, supposedly youre innocent unless proven guilty. That means that an arrest where the charges are dismissed shouldn't count against you. A police officer isn't objective. That's why we have courts, where judges and jury are supposed to be.

But I repeat, if being arrested is the objective measure, then put it on the webpage and say you cant get global entry if youre ever arrested so that people wont pay $100 to be abused by a worthless border patrol agent who has nothing good to do with his life but harass valuable citizens.

I'm willing to bet that some of us will live to see GE-type automated processing by kiosk becoming the default for most all returning US citizens using a US passport ... it is just a matter of when that happens .... despite the predictability of resistance in favor of continued Orwellian Animal Farm approaches to free US persons (i.e., "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" hypocrisy ... which is but another instrument of administratively subjugating free US persons). That's the real world before GE-type automated processing gets cancelled in the US.

That's what you and some other people have decided to make your view of the so-called "real world" and in my opinion it's a rather un-American view.

CBP should be forced to make Global Entry the norm for all without biometrics or questioning.

Has anyone succeeded in "forcing" the CBP to do anything recently? :cool:

Without arguing or judging one's reality; I offer that questioning is the basis of border security. If there are no questions, is there is no form of security. The EU is one of the greatest examples of cross-border freedom; but it still questions quite aggressively in some situations.

For me the choice to be questioned thoroughly "up front" with biometrics is worth the hassle given the frequent (>150/annual) cross-border crossings I make.

As for the OP, he needs to be prepared for deep scrutiny; and his only hope is to get copies of all records and speak to every single arrest if asked.

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.

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.

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.

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. ;)

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I concur

Im confused what do you mean everyone loses it?

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". :rolleyes:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Exactly.

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.

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.

Duplicate

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Do I Have This Right???
 

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

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.

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.

Global denial
 

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

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.

Last time I checked, a criminal is someone who has been convicted of something more than a traffic infraction. Arrests by themselves do not constitute criminality.

I dont want to get into specifics of the OP's legal troubles. But having minor infractions do not automatically bar you from GE.

For Example, a Underage Drinking Citation, or a noise complaint. Hell, my friend got GE and he had a public urination arrest on his record. (tailgating was intense that day)


But a long past of infractions or serious infractions, or not remembering your infractions will bar you from GE.

So without knowing the details of the OP's past, we cant really speculate what the problem is.

But I agree with what was said above

Most of our Presidents would be denied if they applied.

Where there's smoke....

You may not have been convicted, but your MULTIPLE arrests seem to indicate a pattern. Also, convictions have a much higher threshold of guilt required than what CBP has to abide by.

While I agree with Spiff in general about "open borders" for US citizens, I can't fault CBP for labeling you as not meeting their "trusted traveler" determination.

And what if there is information on that screen that is erroneous or incorrect?