Xyzzy

I'll skip all the details and just say that if the airline is not convinced that you are a US citizen or that you can lawfully enter the US they can -- and will -- deny you boarding. If the captain of the aircraft doesn't want yu on board for some reason (ex: you called 911/112 and made a huge scene at the boarding gate), the airline will deny you boarding.

Section 107

Xyzzy is, of course, correct.

@Pendergrast, you are correct that a citizen of the United States cannot be denied entry into the United States. (And did you know that certain other persons who are not United States citizens also may not be denied entry into the United States?)

But the prohibition on denial of entry is not established by constitutional law or statutory law. Rather it is established case law, primarily Nguyen v INS.

However, that rule only applies to decisions made by immigration officials at an actual port of entry into the United States. It does not apply to decisions made by airlines, or airline employees or airline/airport security contractors located outside of the United States.

I can understand the point of view or impression that an airline denying boarding onto a plane in Europe (or some other continent/country) seems to have the same practical result as a government official denying entry into the country at a port of entry, but in fact these are two entirely different situations. Denied boarding onto a common carrier is NOT that same as being denied entry by an immigration official at the port of entry. Fikre v FBI is the case that establishes the government including a person on the no fly list (which thereby results in denial of boarding) is not a denial of rights and is not the same as the government denying entry to a citizen at a port of entry.

Pendergast

And if the police in your hometown thinks you're guilty of pedophilia and drug dealing, then they will arrest you. What are you talking about? No airlines can't deny an American boarding a flight to the USA, just because they're "convinced" they're not Americans. Based on what is an American not an American?`They have to prove it. And also, as a US-citizen you have an automatic lawsuit case by being denied a return/readmittance to the USA, since no US government can't deny entry to an American. Again, we're not talking about criminals. Airlines can get big fines for just denying an American return to the USA without a probable cause. Not being convinced because a non white, blond and blue eyed person is an American with a valid US passport is not probable cause. And I'm not talking about non-US-citizens, because they can be denied entering the USA, without any reason, or refusing to say what their purpose of traveling to the US is.

So you're saying that Americans are walking around with fake passports? Why am I not a US-citizen? Because I was born in the USA but with black hair and an uncommon name? Or that I'm not white, blond and blue eyed? If the airline is convinced that American US-citizens aren't US citizens and that 340 000 000 (as of aug 2023) Americans are walking around with fake passport, they have to proof it, before they can deny any American (not talking about non-US citizens with tourist visas) boarding and access to the their homeland USA. No one is talking about criminals being denied boarding. ICTS and airlines literally refuse US-citizens boarding, not because of their passports, but because they refuse to answer what they're doing in their homeland USA, that is what the purpose of their trip to the USA is. An American living inside USA, flying overseas visiting Paris and London, is denied boarding upon return, because he/she refuses to say why he/she is returning (home). The purpose of the trip to the USA here is returning home as an American. It's any Americans constitutional right to travel from and to their homeland USA. ICTS and the airlines suddenly are convinced that American tourist flying home are not Americans? Based on what?

Again read the post before commenting. No one has said that the purpose of calling 911/112 is to cause a scene or a ruckus, or scream, or to induce another solar system to blow up the earth, or whatever you want to imaginate. I don't know why you make up these things. Every person has the right to a perception, and if I perceive that I'm being harassed by way of racial profiling and targeting, and that a person in a black suit posing as a private contractor och airline personnel has unlawfully taken my passport, I can, based on my perception call the police. The police will even respond to "hey I'm an American on my way my home/returning home but I'm being denied boarding on my booked US bound flight". No the captain can't deny you boarding for just "some reason". Quit daydreaming and come back to reality. The airline and the captain must have probably cause/reason to deny you boarding, which has to be presented to you. Not answering what you, an American returning home from a tourist trip, do inside your homeland USA, or what your parent's names are, is not a probable cause to deny you boarding, and you're certainly not posing a security threat.

No this isn't true. If an American is denied boarding on a US-bound flight, the airline is actually and simultaneously letting an unlawful citizen, that American they denied boarding, into the country the flight is departing from. You simply contact immigration at the airport of the immigration of that country and sooner or later you'll be deported back home to the USA. It takes of course more days, but you'll be sent back at some point, since you're not a citizen of that country. And by having been previously denied boarding, that airline or the captain, has actually let an illegal immigrant, that American they denied boarding, into that country the flight was departing from, and will thus be a case for litigation by that countries immigration. And the lawsuit regarding a case like this is very simple, "why did you let an illegal immigrant into the country?" (again, I'm not talking about criminals, but Americans returning home from an international trip, who were denied boarding because the captain and airlines "felt" like they were not Americans, based on you logic)

So obviously the details does matter Because according to the US Code title 8 Section 1185, an American only needs a valid US passport to return to her/his homeland USA, that is "the State wherein they reside", 14th Amendment. They, thus, don't need to answer what they're doing in that State wherein they reside or what their parent's name is, or which restaurants they go to.

Xyzzy

This is completely incorrect. A captain can easily say that they are not comfortable transporting a particular passenger and that passenger will simply not be transported. No "probable cause" is required, though under the Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft such a decision is not allowed to be "arbitrary or capricious." By the time one gets to litigating that, though, the aircraft will be long gone without the offending passenger on it.Yes -- that's true if and when you arrive at a border crossing. And you may not actually need a passport to be let in (though that certainly makes it easier). But, as was stated earlier several times, an airline or 🫣ther operator of a public conveyance is not absolutely required to transport you to the border.

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.

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.

Section 107

@Pendergrast - 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.


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).

Pendergast

1. But not refusing to answer questions is not an unusual enough reason to deny a US-citizen boarding a US-bound flight

2. US law then wouldn't be valid at an international border, right? Regardless, what I'm trying to say, is that a US-citizen with a valid US passport can't be denied boarding for the reason of simply refusing to answer questions before a US-bound flight. And that TSA doesn't have any jurisdiction outside of the USA, and simply therefore cannot have been giving those orders to interrogate US-citizens at an international border before a US-bound flight.

3. Still not a legal reason to justify denial of boarding a US-citizen a US-bound flight

TWA884

This thread has run its course.

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator