4 ms·

> "you can't travel because you bought an off-brand bag" Denial of Global Entry status is not a prohibition against air travel. It means you don't get expedi

> "you can't travel because you bought an off-brand bag" Denial of Global Entry status is not a prohibition against air travel. It means you don't get expedited screening.

Arainach 9y ago
Making things excessively difficult/painful without technically banning them has been found unconstitutional plenty of times as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/supreme-court-texas-ab... We may not be quite at that point with air travel yet, but each year the TSA finds new and innovative ways to slow down the process and increase all-around misery.
- simonh 9y ago
  Ok, but that would apply to any traveller, not just ones that have been flagged.
  - syshum 9y ago
    Exactly, Personally I believe the "Trusted Traveler" program should be unconstitutional on is face, every citizen should be a "trust traveler" until such time the government as a clear and articulable reason to consider them a safety risk, at which point it should enter into some kind of Administrative or Court process where I person can defend themselves against set accusations Treating everyone as a Terrorist, then "clearing" some people that choose to pay the government money, and go through their privacy invading process should be Unconstitutional and abhorrent to all free people
    - intopieces 9y ago
      The typical screening does not treat everyone as a terrorist. After all, the US has a no-fly list. That list, of course, comes with its own host of issues, but let’s be more precise. Airport screening sucks and is theater. Global Entry is extortion. No doubt. But current screening measures are not unconstitutional.
      - syshum 9y ago
        Using high Intensity EM Waves to peer under my clothes, invasive pat Downs, Making me remove Clothing, limiting my ability to carry liquids, and about 100 other policies feels like I am being treated like a Terrorist or Safety Risk or Criminal. Certainly does not feel like I am treated with Respect, Dignity, and civility that a Free Society should offer its inhabitants as they peacefully travel from point a to point b I shutter to think what you believe would be unacceptable or "being treated like a terrorist" >>>> But current screening measures are not unconstitutional. Only if you skip over and do not read the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th , 10th, 14th Amendments, and Article 1 Section 8
        JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > high Intensity EM Waves You mean non-ionising radiation?
        syshum 9y ago
        Not sure why you believe that distinction matters, the fact that is not harmful is irrelevant to my statement. I am more concerned about the Privacy implications, and the precedent it sets than I am health effects The Government going through my underwear drawer does not physically harm me that does not mean I want to consent or be forced to allow them to search it.
      - wfo 9y ago
        >But current screening measures are not unconstitutional. That really depends on what nine partisans in fancy robes think, a group whose makeup changes over time and who can change their minds. I think what GP was getting at is that it seems so fundamentally unjust that it should be unconstitutional (which is what anyone who is not a constitutional law scholar means when they say unconstitutional), not a claim about legal opinions of powerful judges.
        CPLX 9y ago
        There isn't much of an articulable case for these rules to be unconstitutional. It's not analogous to freedoms people have in their personal life. They're using the Federal aviation system, public property airports, being routed by the FAA, and so on. It's much more analogous to requirements for auto safety and licensing. The government can't mandate the color of your shirt in your own home, but they can mandate the exact shade of your turn signals when you're on public roads. I'm not a fan of our current security state, it's insane. But air travel isn't a private act, it's important to calibrate the conversation to the issue actually at hand.
    - microtherion 9y ago
      As a former resident and frequent visitor to the US, I find it a disturbing trend that more and more government services are segregated into an unpleasant "basic" level of service and a "premium" level of services charging extra fees. This happens for airport screenings, for passport applications, for visas. Subjectively, it feels to me like in most other countries I live or visit, if a government service is bad, the go to strategy is to try to improve it for everybody. In the US, the go to strategy is to create a separate line for "premium" customers so they get reasonable service instead of having to wait in line with hoi polloi.
    - apercu 9y ago
      I'm not sure I agree. The fact that there is a fee applied to Nexus (when you're a citizen) and other things is the issue. I have no problem that if people want expedited routing through customs they have to get background checks and do additional paperwork. It's just bullshit that we charge for it. I had to do FBI and local police BG checks as part of my emigration to Canada. It wasn't like it was onerous or hard. In fact, the medical check was far more expensive and inconvenient.
jdonaldson 9y ago
In my mind expedited screening is sufficient for everyone. In general, I dislike the idea of creating a privileged class of citizen. Dangling global entry status, or revoking it arbitrarily issue one more way a government can inconvenience or threaten people they dislike.
staplers 9y ago
So, the same rights as many minorities when travelling..
stmfreak 9y ago
And yet the MSM and politicians repeatedly suggest using the TSA's no-fly list to deny people their 2nd amendment right to weaponry.
csomar 9y ago
For now.

> "you can't travel because you bought an off-brand bag" Denial of Global Entry status is not a prohibition against air travel. It means you don't get expedited screening.

Arainach 9y ago

Making things excessively difficult/painful without technically banning them has been found unconstitutional plenty of times as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/supreme-court-texas-ab... We may not be quite at that point with air travel yet, but each year the TSA finds new and innovative ways to slow down the process and increase all-around misery.

simonh 9y ago
Ok, but that would apply to any traveller, not just ones that have been flagged.
- syshum 9y ago
  Exactly, Personally I believe the "Trusted Traveler" program should be unconstitutional on is face, every citizen should be a "trust traveler" until such time the government as a clear and articulable reason to consider them a safety risk, at which point it should enter into some kind of Administrative or Court process where I person can defend themselves against set accusations Treating everyone as a Terrorist, then "clearing" some people that choose to pay the government money, and go through their privacy invading process should be Unconstitutional and abhorrent to all free people
  - intopieces 9y ago
    The typical screening does not treat everyone as a terrorist. After all, the US has a no-fly list. That list, of course, comes with its own host of issues, but let’s be more precise. Airport screening sucks and is theater. Global Entry is extortion. No doubt. But current screening measures are not unconstitutional.
    - syshum 9y ago
      Using high Intensity EM Waves to peer under my clothes, invasive pat Downs, Making me remove Clothing, limiting my ability to carry liquids, and about 100 other policies feels like I am being treated like a Terrorist or Safety Risk or Criminal. Certainly does not feel like I am treated with Respect, Dignity, and civility that a Free Society should offer its inhabitants as they peacefully travel from point a to point b I shutter to think what you believe would be unacceptable or "being treated like a terrorist" >>>> But current screening measures are not unconstitutional. Only if you skip over and do not read the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th , 10th, 14th Amendments, and Article 1 Section 8
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > high Intensity EM Waves You mean non-ionising radiation?
        syshum 9y ago
        Not sure why you believe that distinction matters, the fact that is not harmful is irrelevant to my statement. I am more concerned about the Privacy implications, and the precedent it sets than I am health effects The Government going through my underwear drawer does not physically harm me that does not mean I want to consent or be forced to allow them to search it.
    - wfo 9y ago
      >But current screening measures are not unconstitutional. That really depends on what nine partisans in fancy robes think, a group whose makeup changes over time and who can change their minds. I think what GP was getting at is that it seems so fundamentally unjust that it should be unconstitutional (which is what anyone who is not a constitutional law scholar means when they say unconstitutional), not a claim about legal opinions of powerful judges.
      - CPLX 9y ago
        There isn't much of an articulable case for these rules to be unconstitutional. It's not analogous to freedoms people have in their personal life. They're using the Federal aviation system, public property airports, being routed by the FAA, and so on. It's much more analogous to requirements for auto safety and licensing. The government can't mandate the color of your shirt in your own home, but they can mandate the exact shade of your turn signals when you're on public roads. I'm not a fan of our current security state, it's insane. But air travel isn't a private act, it's important to calibrate the conversation to the issue actually at hand.
  - microtherion 9y ago
    As a former resident and frequent visitor to the US, I find it a disturbing trend that more and more government services are segregated into an unpleasant "basic" level of service and a "premium" level of services charging extra fees. This happens for airport screenings, for passport applications, for visas. Subjectively, it feels to me like in most other countries I live or visit, if a government service is bad, the go to strategy is to try to improve it for everybody. In the US, the go to strategy is to create a separate line for "premium" customers so they get reasonable service instead of having to wait in line with hoi polloi.
  - apercu 9y ago
    I'm not sure I agree. The fact that there is a fee applied to Nexus (when you're a citizen) and other things is the issue. I have no problem that if people want expedited routing through customs they have to get background checks and do additional paperwork. It's just bullshit that we charge for it. I had to do FBI and local police BG checks as part of my emigration to Canada. It wasn't like it was onerous or hard. In fact, the medical check was far more expensive and inconvenient.

jdonaldson 9y ago

In my mind expedited screening is sufficient for everyone. In general, I dislike the idea of creating a privileged class of citizen. Dangling global entry status, or revoking it arbitrarily issue one more way a government can inconvenience or threaten people they dislike.

staplers 9y ago

So, the same rights as many minorities when travelling..

stmfreak 9y ago

And yet the MSM and politicians repeatedly suggest using the TSA's no-fly list to deny people their 2nd amendment right to weaponry.

csomar 9y ago

For now.