Originally Posted by GUWonder

Some EU citizens can, but don't worry. GE members won't be waived from the hits of this ban, so all equal animals will be treated poorly as US DHS likes it.

Originally Posted by rickg523

First off, ability to pay is far more elitist than being a vetted passenger. Any American can be Global Entry if they apply and qualify.

Originally Posted by artemis

Some folks, though not a real security threat, won't pass the background check.

Originally Posted by beachmouse

It's not just direct costs for Global Entry; it's also indirect costs. Even though I live east of the Mississippi River, the nearest place I can go for Global entry is 300+ miles away by car. Literally half the states in the country have no interview location for Global Entry.

So easy to have to spend a couple hundred dollars beyond the cost of application to get GE if you don't live vaguely near a GE interview site and can't combine your interview with another trip.

Originally Posted by notquiteaff

Do those same folks qualify for an airline or airport job that provides access to the baggage areas in the bowels of the airport?

Originally Posted by artemis

Absolutely. I've long thought that that is the best way to get a large bomb in the hold - have someone on the inside slip it into a bag that's already been screened. And of course there's commercial cargo loaded onto passenger flights that receives minimal (if any) screening, and nothing on the catering truck receives any screening at all. "Would you like a special meal? Your options for this flight are kosher, vegetarian, or McBoom!"

The real reason planes aren't being blown out of the sky right and left is the same reason huge numbers of people aren't being deliberately run over by passenger vehicles or gunned down and/or blown to pieces in shopping centers: there just aren't all that many people out there who are both willing and able to do those things. Even in countries where ISIS and Al Shabab have a real presence, most people simply aren't murderers.

(Does that mean we need no security at all? No, of course not. But we need to keep the security screening proportionate to the actual level of threat, and we need to realize and accept that a risk-free free society is a contradiction in terms.)

Originally Posted by gooselee

Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if half (literally 50%) of the US population isn't aware that not all countries in Europe are part of the EU, or that the Schengen zone is yet another different grouping of states.

More than once I have heard people refer to Africa as a country.

This makes most people reacting to the news believe that this issue (and so many others) are far less complex than they actually are. Add that to people believing that the US is the center of the world, and....

Originally Posted by artemis

But the average person doesn't know that. They think Global Entry is a special program reserved exclusively for frequent flyers or the 1%. And of course not everyone can qualify for Global Entry. Some folks, though not a real security threat, won't pass the background check.



I want a uniform with shiny high boots! And some sort of snazzy insignia on the collar tabs - maybe a design based on the old Pan Am globe?

Originally Posted by rickg523

And I tell you, in the States at least, you could literally order civilians around to your whim "Folks, you'll need to approach your seats on your knees. It's a new security measure in response to a credible threat."
And if you got kickback, no doubt from some American who was an adult before Sept. 2001, a whole lot of people would take your side. "Just comply. You're delaying and inconveniencing everyone else with your questions and insistence on an explanation."

Originally Posted by artemis

Sadly, this is so true.It wasn't 9/11; that only revealed that the character trait was already there. If it hadn't been, then the Patriot Act would have met with more than token resistance, and we would have had to have had a real discussion about how far the government should be allowed to go "in the name of national security.")

Originally Posted by rickg523

So right you are.
I think there's been an undercurrent of preference for order in the reaction to social discontent in the 1960's, which was taken by some citizens as a rejection of their nation. Thus the "blames America First" right wing meme applied to any criticism of US foreign policy. And social order became "law and order." Add a foreign-originated attack on US soil and the fear factor just pushed these folks over the edge. And gave cynical officials cover for the clampdown. Now, in 2017, great swathes of the US population believe the answer to security is simple. Fortress America. They voted for the current admin.
To my mind, the proposal we're discussing here is just the third step in that direction in so many months. And why these e-bans will never be applied to domestic flights. Evidence and experience be damned. That doesn't advance the goal of isolation.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog

Very few on either side of the aisle will speak out against TSA and TSA tactics.

Originally Posted by rickg523

So right you are.
I think there's been an undercurrent of preference for order in the reaction to social discontent in the 1960's, which was taken by some citizens as a rejection of their nation.