The government never makes a mistake. Never, never, never.

Oops, I made a mistake. :D

I can fault CBP for these outcomes and blowing smoke and putting up mirrors to use against free US citizens. The DHS/TSA/CBP "trusted traveler" nonsense is Orwellian Animal Farmesque; and it is also Kafkaesque to boot.

He was never convicted. Perhaps he is in lots of protest marches, and gets arrested a lot. Unless his arrest was for a customs or immigration violation that he committed but the authorities declined to prosecute, then there is no need to refuse GE.

I agree GE should be the norm and there should be no questioning after the kiosk clears a traveler. I don't understand how the system can work without biometrics. Without biometrics, it would be easy for someone to use anothers GE identification to enter the country.

Thanks NRR
 

Anyone else have any similar experiences

Two of my friends have got GE with MIP's (minors in possession)

One got a GE with a DUI. But he went through the ARD program first.
I dont know if other states have ARD. IT pretty much clears your record of the infraction.

That's not at all clear. Can you provide a citation for that claim? When I was waiting for me GE interview (which was almost content-free since I'd applied for NEXUS, which was granted by the US officer but refused by CBSA until I appealed, but granted after the second GE inteview), I heard somebody who was an attorney discussing a many-year-old conviction that he thought had been expunged, but it wasn't on CBP's record. I didn't catch what it was for, but apparently there is requirement for no convictions of a certain type.

But I agree with the comments about the OP: I don't think the issue was an arrest, but multiple arrests and it sounds like the charges on many of them were different, which is a major red flag. Somebody getting arrested and not convicted multiple times for "disturbing the peace" was probably committing acts of civil disobedience and I doubt would be flagged. But somebody with multiple arrests and multiple charges is a very different situation and I agree that "where there's smoke, there's fire" applies. I strongly suspect there's more to this story than we're being told here.

Is the standard for Trusted Traveler lower than for Global Entry?

Global Entry is a subset of DHS's "Trusted Traveler" nonsense.

I have a colleague with multiple indiscretions though his early adulthood that he believes will prevent him from getting Global Entry. When we travel together he always gets the trusted traveler line, along with the rest of us. When we return from international trips together he is always last to the car because he doesn't have Global Entry. Does him qualifying for Trusted Traveler mean he would qualify for Global Entry?

Talking of PreCheck and Global Entry? Both are subsets of the DHS "trusted traveler" approach. To answer your question about him qualifying for being enabled for Global entry: perhaps he would qualify but there is no certainty that he would until he applies and "interviews".

There are people who get the PreCheck/PreCheck LLL treatment but do get rejected for being enabled for Global Entry. There are also people who rarely or never get the PreCheck LLL treatment yet are enabled for Global Entry.

Seems that GE requirements are rather arbitrary...
I was denied, twice. I have a DUI misdemeanor conviction from 2007. I, of course, disclosed it.

Here's the kicker (and the agent got a kick out of this too when his boss told him to deny me): CBP and the agency I work for are in the same department. I hold a valid security clearance. No disciplinary action was ever taken against me by the agency for the DUI conviction, never had my access even suspended for that, let alone lose the clearance. According to the agent, sure... in his logic, based on a simple fact that gov't would trust me with secrets I should've been granted GE membership. His supervisor disagreed. :)

You should probably take this to the media if you can find a way; it would help expose the TT sham. "Trusted with national security secrets but still have to take shoes off for TSA", or something along those lines but more punchy would be a good title. Elliot would certainly write about it.

Bad Advice.

Going to the media will find your security clearance pulled fast, and possible job loss.

Absolutely not!

Yup...

There is no certainty in that.

Actually Ari gave great advice. And it has been done without the security clearances being pulled and it can be done pretty easily still. ;)

It is a matter of finding a way. The issue is that having posted on FT about it, governmental administrative pulls for info about an FTer may be facilitated by IB. The security clearance pull concern this time may not necessarily change a thing. ;)

When I seek entry into my country of citizenship, it is normally by holding my open passport up, the immigration officer nods, and I enter, often without breaking my stride. Clearing customs involves taking myself and my baggage down an appropriate lane. Neither process takes more than a couple of minutes.

I happen to have a security clearance, but it is the same treatment for other citizens.

I do not see a fair reason for the US to do all this nonsense that I read. There might be some unfair reasons, like stiffing people for $100 or whatever for this expedited membership, or power tripping. Maybe it's just me.

Based on where you are located, one would assume you are British, and you certainly don't enter Britain any more by just holding up your passport and waltzing in. Haven't been able to do that for a long time.

Without getting into details, I know what I am talking about in this arena.

Now if you have a very low clearance (like the kind all armed forces members recieve) you might be able to keep it. But any real clearance or important Government job, you will be ousted fast.

Too many counterfeit US passports, for one.

What do you consider a "real" clearance?

+1 - Presuming that we're talking about a significant clearance at TS or above, this is an easy way to lose that clearance and, if it's a job which requires the clearance, the job as well.

For what it's worth, a DUI conviction abroad would generally lead to the exclusion of a non-citizen from entry to the US and a USN to Canada as well as numerous other nations.

You aren't the only one here claiming to know what they are talking about this matter. It matters how it is done, which is a point well covered in Ari's post.

There are at least two people on FT who were at the European and Asian torture centers upon which the CIA relied during recent years and more than that number who were present at GTMO for secret hearings. Is that a "real" clearance? At least one of them went to the press on such matters and there is no reason to believe that person's employment relationship has been surrendered even as there is every reason to be aware that the person still has a "real" clearance. What matters is how it is done. ;)

You assume wrongly.

The lucky charm of the Irish passport?

I have entered Britain without opening my US passport to enter Britain. Just needed to crossover into the UK by surface transport from the ROI --literally waltzed over a couple of years ago without my passport being opened. The great thing about a CTA.

A single, simple DUI conviction does not make a individual inadmissible to the United States. It does not lead to the individual being inadmissible generally or specifically for that matter.

FB

I recall that the OP claimed to work for DHS; embarassing TSA might not be good for him. He can make his own choice. I think TomBrady is overdramatizing the consequences of such a story because there would be no prohibited disclosure. Before doing something like this, I'd probably solicit advice from someone in the know who isn't an anonomys blog poster.

That was my understanding as well.

Often1 is frequently a canary in a nonexistent mine; this has been a recurring feature.

Other than Canada, which nations use a single, most frequent sort of DUI conviction in the US to exclude non-citizens from visiting in the way Canada does to those US persons convicted of such DUI?

If it's "numerous other nations", it must be a very small minority number of nations.

In how many countries has US's CEO been denied entry for driving drunk? Most of the countries that US serves? Doubtful.

What is a real clearance? As an aside not all "armed forces" members receive the same type of clearance what are you on about?


And what makes you think OPM or DIA or any other clearance investigating arm is going to yank a TS (or even TS-SCI for example) because someone goes to the media about a generic trusted traveller concern? Yankee White...maybe, but of course how many of them are trusted "sources" for media types already...

Someone with that type of clearance is much more likely to lose it by leaving the country wihtout prior approval or country briefing than bringing up a generic absurdity with DHS hacks.

What's a real clearance? Anything below TS? TS/SCI? Confidential? I, frankly, have never even seen anyone with that one... Armed forces members just get a basic NACLC "investigation", but are not adjudicated for anything else unless they need it, unless there has been changes as of late.

Either way, going to the media may not be such a great of an idea, not only because of the reasons you mentioned...

If the immigration officer is puritan enough, (s)he can classify DUI as a crime of moral turpitude, and that will make one inadmissible.

Quite right :)

No. Do a little research.

A simple DUI can't be a CIMT.

Nor can felony DUI be one for that matter.

IIRC It depends.

For example, in the Air Force all officers must normally rate a Secret for commissioning.
However as you mention most others of course are unit/job specific. I've flown with some units where everyone had to have TS/SCI just to get in the door.

Other multinational units add to the complications depending on the NOFORN rules. Although I do find some of OPM's contract investigators lack of knowledge about multi-national units humourous. I've seen them ask people at NATO "if they worked with any foreign nationals" :rolleyes: then to list all the foreign nationals they worked with which would require reems of extra paper for some...but I digress.

It does not work that way in the real world. It would not make it past the supervisory review that has to occur before that decision would be processed. It is never one officer's decision. In addition, adverse action cases are subject to review after the fact as well for basically quality assurance purposes. This is to ensure that case work is being done correctly and meets legal sufficiency.

FB

Sure it can. Just ask the SBA!

OPM investigators do tend to do humorous things! I do remember that getting permission to disclose some elint information to a RCAF officer involved considerable paperwork.

I've always wondered how multi national units work when it comes to access. IIRC, the weapons station Kings Bay, GA has a somewhat large British (and I believe French) presence.

All officers in the five branches have to have Secret for commissioning. I was rather talking about your lowest common denominator and the majority of the force - I doubt that a guy in the infantry will go past anything but NACLC, just to make sure he's not wanted for stealing some candy in bum-buck-nowhere USA.

SBA? What do they have to do with this?

My SBA loan was denied because I committed a crime of moral turpitude, namely the DUI. I'm awaiting results of a higher-instance review right now. Just saying that they can equate DUI to a CIMT.

But CBP can't. There is no grey area. DUI is not a CIMT for immigration purposes.

For US immigration purposes, indeed CBP can't and doesn't (unless there is a glitch somewhere). Just to make sure there is no gray area there.

Uh...
 

No!!! Most people I know in the program have never been arrested/charged/convicted of anything.