It's always helpful to know at least a few facts before going off the deep end.

The testing is momentary and non-invasive and involves the use of an infrared thermometer. That is a hand-held device which "infers" body temperature by being pointed at an individual, but not making contact.

I suppose that if one turned away from the CDC staffer, a CBP Officer would physically restrain you for the 15-20 seconds necessary and that would be it (presuming that you are not running a fever).

If there are no symptoms, off you go. If there are, then there is more than enough to quarantine an individual if that is what it takes and there is no federal judge (or appellate court) who is going to interfere in that.

Well SCOTUS famously ruled that the freedom speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment does not allow anyone to shout “Fire” in a crowded theater when there isn’t one.

I'm curious what constitutional liberty you believe I would be sacrifing? Unreasonable search? Because that's the closest I can come up with but don't believe a temperature check is unreasonable.

Of course you are allowed to protest and face the consequences of doing so. I don't think anyone here knows what those potential consequences would be. Please report back once you're released on bond.

to keep this legal and not political, from my understanding in order to be detained an officer needs to have R. A. S. In this case they would need to have RAS that I am threat to general public. It's hard for them to provide that just because I decided to exercise my 4th and 5th amendment right. I have before refused to answer custom questions and even use kiosk /fill out declaration form. I would argue legally this is no different. One is not required to help government with their investigation

If you attempt to refuse non-invasive testing and to answer questions, then I believe you would be detained/quarantined until it is established that you are not a threat. There comes a point when a selfish refusal to participate in the general good of society, i.e. protect the public health from a serious threat, can, under law, get you held against your will. You are not the only person who matters on Planet Earth: WHO stats on SARS, a virus of the family as the current threat, making it the closest parallel, were 8437 sickened, 813 DEAD, est. cost of dealing with SARS worldwide $54 billion. And that majority of that was due to one person who chose to travel when he knew he was sick.

Just to focus on the legality of the CDC screening at airports and what is allowed by law -- there were several legal articles after the Ebola screenings. Here is a quotation from one and a link.

"Generally, federal regulations authorizing the apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional release of individuals are applicable only to individuals coming into a state or possession from a foreign country or possession.16 But Section 361 of the PHS Act also authorizes the apprehension and examination of any individual reasonably believed to be infected with a communicable disease in a qualifying stage17 and (A) to be moving or about to move from a State to another State; or (B) to be a probable source of infection to individuals who, while infected with such disease in a qualifying stage, will be moving from a State to another State. 18 If found to be infected, such individuals may be detained for such time and in such manner as may be reasonably necessary.19 Regulations promulgated pursuant to quarantine authority under the PHS Act may be found in Parts 70 and 71 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 70 applies to interstate travel, Part 71 to foreign arrivals.20In addition, the Director of the CDC is also authorized to take measures as may be necessary to prevent the spread of a communicable disease from one state or possession to any other state or possession if he determines that measures taken by local health authorities are inadequate to prevent the spread of the disease.21 To prevent the spread of diseases between states, the regulations prohibit infected persons from traveling from one state to another without a permit from the health officer of the state, possession, or locality of destination, if such a permit is required under the law applicable to the place of destination"

https://library.law.uiowa.edu/sites/...les/R43829.pdf

Yes.

And what legal investigation do you think you're (not) helping? This isn't a self-incrimination issue because the test isn't to establish criminal activity. If the CDC finds you're sick, you aren't thrown in prison.

You can post whatever justifications that you want. As you can see from the responses above, you are wrong for taking this position.

The reason that few are actually quarantined is that those who are picked up in the initial screen, e.g., infrared thermometer and visual inspection (no right to privacy in what you look like) lose a lot of the false bravado when the simple alternatives are presented.

It is also unlikely that any treatment or invasive procedure would be forced during the quarantine period. One would simply be quarantined for however long it is and, if asymptomatic, then released. If symptoms appear, it would be a judgment call as to whether an emergency guardianship procedure to force treatment is necessary.

The reason that few are quarantined is because it’s not good policy to quarantine people for no good reason. Level of cooperation by itself is neither a good reason or bad reason for someone to be under quarantine or not, but it’s a factor for consideration when it comes to people who should be under quarantine for health reasons.

I am not saying that, and I wouldn’t say that. That would border on giving even more of a carte blanche to CBP, CDC and other government actors than already given.

I think that proportionality and other nuances are relevant to whether or not I would say a public health safety measure is appropriate or not in that way or other ways.

I don’t find the government sticking a temp measuring device against a forehead or ear to be the same thing as banishing a person to an underground cell in a remote Alaskan holding camp for 24/7 monitoring and invasive testing just because the arriving person had a pimple on the cheek.

People who refuse to cooperate are exactly the people who need to be quarantined. Normal people are advised of the symptoms to watch for, asked for contact information, and given contact information at CDC in case they do become symptomatic and are on their way.

Quarantine is only appropriate when there is both a risk and no reasonable way to manage that risk short of quarantine. If one doesn't believe that someone running a 109 fever will call in to say there's a problem, that's someone who poses a public health danger.

So because people decide to exercise their legal right, they should be quarantined? Just because i refuse to agree to provide government with information can't be deemed that i pose public health danger. That would mean when i refuse to answer us custom question i should be arrested because i could be terrorist. An Americans we have certain rights, one of them not being harassed/monitored by the government.

There's a line at which your rights and other people rights border.

Sure, at times. But government forcing a seemingly healthy person into quarantine only because the person stays quiet at a port of entry is not of those times.

The ability of claims about public safety to be used by government to control or otherwise coerce an individual traveler and intrude Into the life of such seemingly healthy individual should not be unlimited even at borders.

That is the part where you are making an error in reasoning. You're not dealing with the police or law enforcement. RAS does not apply. You're dealing with the CDC and they have made the coronavirus a notifiable disease.

CDC have an absolute power under law to inspect individuals arriving at a US PoE. You *do not* have a 5th Amendment case because you're not being accused of a criminal offence - illness is not crime, even in the US. You *do not* have a 4th Amendment right to deny their inspection, and given their inspection is non-invasive and ~30 seconds in length (assuming they don't find any evidence of infection during said inspection) you won't find a court in the country that would side with your legally dubious and morally incomprehensible position.