turned down for Global Entry because applicant never worked during lifetime
Dec 22, 2013, 2:35 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 64
turned down for Global Entry because applicant never worked during lifetime
My mother was turned down for Global Entry because she was unemployed and "never worked a day in her lifetime"(the words of the agent)...
Needless to say, she is p****d because being a good housewife and raising 5 kids to adulthood apparently is not a job in the eyes of the US government?
What can she do now?
Needless to say, she is p****d because being a good housewife and raising 5 kids to adulthood apparently is not a job in the eyes of the US government?
What can she do now?
Dec 22, 2013, 4:44 pm
#3
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Programs: AA Gold. UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt (Lifetime Diamond downgraded to Explorist)
Posts: 6,776
Does she have a female or male liberal representative in Congress or Governor? Let them do something for a constituent.
Dec 22, 2013, 9:37 pm
#4
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Sounds like she was denied after conditional approval. Did the agent ask her how she pays for her travel and about who supplies that money?
I'd say do that and get a letter in to constituent services with the US Senators and US House member who represents her in Congress.
Having a history of income-generating employment is not a condition of approval. But doubts about the source for the means of travel may be used to decline those who have even been granted GE or given conditional approval.
I'd say do that and get a letter in to constituent services with the US Senators and US House member who represents her in Congress.
Having a history of income-generating employment is not a condition of approval. But doubts about the source for the means of travel may be used to decline those who have even been granted GE or given conditional approval.
Dec 22, 2013, 9:43 pm
#5
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: District of Columbia
Programs: AA ExecPl, AT Gold, Hyatt Globalist, IHG Diamond, Hilton Diamond, National
Posts: 2,440
Sounds like she was denied after conditional approval. Did the agent ask her how she pays for her travel and about who supplies that money?
I'd say do that and get a letter in to constituent services with the US Senators and US House member who represents her in Congress.
Having a history of income-generating employment is not a condition of approval. But doubts about the source for the means of travel may be used to decline those who have even been granted GE or given conditional approval.
I'd say do that and get a letter in to constituent services with the US Senators and US House member who represents her in Congress.
Having a history of income-generating employment is not a condition of approval. But doubts about the source for the means of travel may be used to decline those who have even been granted GE or given conditional approval.
Dec 23, 2013, 3:44 am
#6
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Some housewives and househusbands are rather wealthy independent of their spouses, and that wealth can produce substantial income of its own or be used for expenses whether or not it is community properyty or not.
Also, the income and/or wealth source/status of the spouse may still be of concern to CBP, which is why it is rather common for this kind of thing to be questioned when a housewife or househusband is applying for GE.
Dec 23, 2013, 9:08 am
#7
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Does it really matter? I was talking about various circumstances relevant to housewife and househusband applicants who may have no paid employment history of their own.
Why didn't you ask if she is living off her children? Lots of people who only worked as housewives or househusbands do just that. Why didn't you ask if she lives in Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, or Wisconsin?
Keep in mind what community property and/or community income may mean for those who have a spouse with income.
Why didn't you ask if she is living off her children? Lots of people who only worked as housewives or househusbands do just that. Why didn't you ask if she lives in Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, or Wisconsin?
Keep in mind what community property and/or community income may mean for those who have a spouse with income.
Last edited by GUWonder; Dec 23, 2013 at 9:20 am
Dec 23, 2013, 10:49 am
#8
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Slightly to the left of center
Posts: 3,475
Certainly there must be other examples of housewives who have applied for Global Entry where there husband/partner is employed. Have they all been denied? Maybe there is more to this story? Or maybe there is a story to be made?
Also, Global Entry is not a right it is a privilege, for which not everyone will qualify for, and the rules of acceptance are not entirely available to the general public.
Also, Global Entry is not a right it is a privilege, for which not everyone will qualify for, and the rules of acceptance are not entirely available to the general public.
Dec 23, 2013, 12:06 pm
#9
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
I would want to hear the entire Q&A, not just the snippet.
If this was part of a discussion of the source of funds for travel that it a lot different than the assertion that someone who doesn't work isn't trustworthy.
If this was part of a discussion of the source of funds for travel that it a lot different than the assertion that someone who doesn't work isn't trustworthy.
Dec 23, 2013, 1:49 pm
#10
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Certainly there must be other examples of housewives who have applied for Global Entry where there husband/partner is employed. Have they all been denied? Maybe there is more to this story? Or maybe there is a story to be made?
Also, Global Entry is not a right it is a privilege, for which not everyone will qualify for, and the rules of acceptance are not entirely available to the general public.
Also, Global Entry is not a right it is a privilege, for which not everyone will qualify for, and the rules of acceptance are not entirely available to the general public.
There are spouses who have no paid employment history of their own and live off the money they inherited or received as part of litigation in their favor, and they too have been approved for GE.
Dec 23, 2013, 8:54 pm
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC, USA
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 10,968
IMHO, the issue for CBP is not that the applicant has or has not been a productive, working member of society. In fact, regardless of how the officer phrased it about "not working a day in her life," it would be illegal for the government to deny membership in any program to anyone on the basis of lack of work or inability to find a job. (I'm not a constitutional law specialist, but I'm pretty sure I'm on target.)
Rather, the issue for CBP is that the applicant has not established sufficient activity on his or her SSN profile to make it possible for the background checks to determine to DHS's satisfaction that the applicant is "low risk." After all, we are talking about a VOLUNTARY program whereby the applicant must satisfy the burden of proof that he or she is "low risk" for immigration/customs purposes. Proof of steady employment/income is one measurement of this kind of risk.
For the same reason, the applicant likely would be denied certain loans, credit accounts, etc.
This point has nothing to do with the applicant's intentions or productivity. Instead, it is simply about how much DHS knows about the applicant on paper. Most of us who have worked for years, had utilities in our name, etc., have extensive "records" that the government can use for background checks to determine whether we are low risk.
And frankly, the government prefers for everyone to have a lengthy history associated with the SSN so that it is easy to make risk determinations.
Rather, the issue for CBP is that the applicant has not established sufficient activity on his or her SSN profile to make it possible for the background checks to determine to DHS's satisfaction that the applicant is "low risk." After all, we are talking about a VOLUNTARY program whereby the applicant must satisfy the burden of proof that he or she is "low risk" for immigration/customs purposes. Proof of steady employment/income is one measurement of this kind of risk.
For the same reason, the applicant likely would be denied certain loans, credit accounts, etc.
This point has nothing to do with the applicant's intentions or productivity. Instead, it is simply about how much DHS knows about the applicant on paper. Most of us who have worked for years, had utilities in our name, etc., have extensive "records" that the government can use for background checks to determine whether we are low risk.
And frankly, the government prefers for everyone to have a lengthy history associated with the SSN so that it is easy to make risk determinations.
