FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Trusted Travelers (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trusted-travelers-732/)
-   -   Is Global Entry worthwhile? (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trusted-travelers/917913-global-entry-worthwhile.html)

alexb133 Jun 16, 2011 7:17 am


Originally Posted by FlyMeToTheLooneyBin (Post 16569521)
Interviews usually last about 20-30 minutes. If you can time your appointments appropriately, 2 hours should be fine. Is there a penalty for missing your GE interview?

I think you have to apply all over again.

boberonicus Jun 16, 2011 9:38 am


Originally Posted by FlyMeToTheLooneyBin (Post 16569521)
Interviews usually last about 20-30 minutes. If you can time your appointments appropriately, 2 hours should be fine. Is there a penalty for missing your GE interview?

No. Or I should say "not for my missed interview".

Originally Posted by alexb133 (Post 16571010)
I think you have to apply all over again.

No, when I missed my appointment I rescheduled in person a week later. It wasn't a big deal.

colonius Jun 16, 2011 10:55 am


Originally Posted by anabolism (Post 16568632)
I know several people who were approved despite a history of pot smoking during their younger years.

Are you implying that there is an inappropriate and disproportionate reaction to Nazi-related issues? If so, I'd disagree. There are plenty of examples of people/governments not caring unless forced to. More to the point, I'd suspect that if they dropped any questions about Nazis or National Socialists, no one would notice, especially if this was more than, say, five years from now.

I think some people have missed the point that they ask for participation in the NSDAP or other Nazi-Germany organizations before 1945. And that is quite rapidly becoming moot.

If they would rephrase to include Neo-Nazis of all nationalities, I would completely agree and understand.




[regarding GE denial for omitting a shop-lifting offense at age 12]

It does seem very unfair for omitting a pre-teen offense. I wouldn't think leaving that off would be intent to deceive.
I completely agree here. At that age I lived in Germany, where the age of criminal responsibility is 14. Anything before that would not have been recorded anywhere in the judicial system in the first place. There might have been a record in the youth welfare system, but that is erased once you are age 21.

So if I had commited any offense there before age 14, US or Canadian authorities could not even see it, even things much more sinister. So I believe they should draw a line age-wise.

I mean, what's next? Charging a 5-year-old girl that doesn't wear a bikini top at the pool with indecent exposure and denying her GE 10 years later?

drewguy Jun 16, 2011 11:53 am


Originally Posted by anabolism (Post 16568632)

Are you implying that there is an inappropriate and disproportionate reaction to Nazi-related issues? If so, I'd disagree.

What I was stating (or maybe implying) is that with the dwindling number of living people who were actual members of the Nazi party, restrictions are going to have a very narrow application. The removal of those restrictions, however, I would predict would have a high symbolic value to a large community that I suspect would make a lot over it when the consequences are actually close to nil.

jcf27 Jun 16, 2011 1:59 pm


Originally Posted by anabolism (Post 16568632)
It does seem very unfair for omitting a pre-teen offense. I wouldn't think leaving that off would be intent to deceive.

Yeah, probably it is unfair. I wouldn't leave it off either. I forgot the actual question, but if it say something like "have you ever been arrested, convicted, etc...." If the word 'ever' is there, it means "at any time." If I've been arrested at 12. I would say so. yeah, I was dumb, I'm embarrassed about it, etc.... and talk your way out of it....

--J

jcf27 Jun 16, 2011 2:02 pm


Originally Posted by colonius (Post 16572334)
I mean, what's next? Charging a 5-year-old girl that doesn't wear a bikini top at the pool with indecent exposure and denying her GE 10 years later?

Hey, in America you are in the land of the prude.... sad and true....

--J

anabolism Jun 16, 2011 10:51 pm


Originally Posted by alexb133 (Post 16569204)
That's interesting to know. While I don't know anybody personally - my NEXUS CBP officer told me of the drug history rule.

Perhaps the interviewing officer has some discretion?

drewguy Jun 17, 2011 8:04 am


Originally Posted by anabolism (Post 16575819)
Perhaps the interviewing officer has some discretion?

Pretty sure the clearance is done "back office". The interviewing officer is just confirming details and telling you about the program. You're "in" by the time of the interview, and you don't get one if you don't qualify for some reason.

bseller Jun 17, 2011 9:06 am


Originally Posted by drewguy (Post 16577482)
Pretty sure the clearance is done "back office". The interviewing officer is just confirming details and telling you about the program.

You're correct. There is no influence on the approval process by the CBP officer with whom you have an interview. None.

Dave

drewguy Jun 17, 2011 2:14 pm


Originally Posted by jcf27 (Post 16573527)
Hey, in America you are in the land of the prude.... sad and true....

--J

The OP's issue was not the crime, it was the failure to disclose it.

Given the rules of GE as known, a shoplifting as a minor crime that occurred >10 years ago shouldn't disqualify someone if disclosed (I'm assuming it was misdemeanor). But he didn't disclose it. Same for any bikini crime.

jcf27 Jun 17, 2011 2:40 pm


Originally Posted by drewguy (Post 16579743)
The OP's issue was not the crime, it was the failure to disclose it.

Given the rules of GE as known, a shoplifting as a minor crime that occurred >10 years ago shouldn't disqualify someone if disclosed (I'm assuming it was misdemeanor). But he didn't disclose it. Same for any bikini crime.

I Know !!! You didn't read my other posts....

--J

dpdapper Jun 17, 2011 4:25 pm


Originally Posted by drewguy (Post 16567903)
Yeah, the only grounds I could see for undoing this problem is if you can somehow justify that he was not required to disclose this under GE's terms. I haven't parsed those because I have no offenses, but unless there's a rock-solid justification I think the OP is stuck with his error. (Which is kind of unfortunate that an offense as a 12 yo has now turned into an offense as an adult).

Let's just say I know someone who applied for GE and did not disclose a conviction as a minor (in 1971) that had been sealed. At the interview, this person was asked if he had ever been arrested. When the applicant answered "no," the interviewing officer said "1971?" Whereupon the conviction was disclosed, together with the fact that the applicant believed that as the conviction had been sealed he was not required to disclose it. The officer then asked about the circumstances of the conviction, and the applicant disclosed that the arrest involved a small amount of marijuana but the conviction was for "disturbing the peace." http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...s/rolleyes.gif

After the applicant returned home and checked his e-mail (about an hour after the interview concluded), the applicant had recieved notice that his application had been approved. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/smile.gif

GoingAway Jun 17, 2011 5:52 pm


Originally Posted by dpdapper (Post 16580369)
Let's just say I know someone who applied for GE and did not disclose a conviction as a minor (in 1971) that had been sealed. At the interview, this person was asked if he had ever been arrested. When the applicant answered "no," the interviewing officer said "1971?" Whereupon the conviction was disclosed, together with the fact that the applicant believed that as the conviction had been sealed he was not required to disclose it. The officer then asked about the circumstances of the conviction, and the applicant disclosed that the arrest involved a small amount of marijuana but the conviction was for "disturbing the peace." http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...s/rolleyes.gif

After the applicant returned home and checked his e-mail (about an hour after the interview concluded), the applicant had recieved notice that his application had been approved. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/smile.gif

I'd say the applicant was lucky that the guy gave him the chance to explain, and that the explanation was found to be acceptable

RobertS975 Jun 24, 2011 8:29 pm

New Passport Question
 
Currently have GE, but have just renewed passport. Do I have to visit the GE office at BOS Logan (which I assume is just open weekdays during the day) or can the regular CBP office at Logan handle the passport transition?

GoingAway Jun 24, 2011 8:31 pm


Originally Posted by RobertS975 (Post 16621826)
Currently have GE, but have just renewed passport. Do I have to visit the GE office at BOS Logan (which I assume is just open weekdays during the day) or can the regular CBP office at Logan handle the passport transition?

I would think it's the GE office, as I would be surprised if the other readily had the stickers available. You can stop at any of them it doesnt have to be where you had the interview.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:08 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.