3 ms·

> (an affront to Irish sovereignty, but that's another matter I’ll bite. Why do you think it’s an affront to their sovereignty? It’s entirely voluntary and it’

> (an affront to Irish sovereignty, but that's another matter I’ll bite. Why do you think it’s an affront to their sovereignty? It’s entirely voluntary and it’s something the Dublin airport (and the dozens of other airports in Canada) actively seek out to get direct access to the domestic side in the US. The US does not force any airports into these arrangements.

lmm 2y ago
The programme is there for the convenience of the US. Would they allow Ireland to operate a corresponding facility on US soil? (The popularity of that airport for CIA torture flights also doesn't help the case, even if not directly linked)
- rssoconnor 2y ago
  > The programme is there for the convenience of the US. Would they allow Ireland to operate a corresponding facility on US soil? FWIW, I recall reading that the program in Canada is reciprocal, and it is simply the case that Canada hasn't decided to operate any corresponding facility in the US.
  - goodcanadian 2y ago
    That is correct. IIRC, Bermuda is also part of the agreement, and I would be very much surprised if Ireland doesn't operate on the same rules.
- majormajor 2y ago
  It provides a good amount of convenience for US citizens, certainly. Let's talk about Toronto or Vancouver to set aside CIA whatever. What particular convenience does it provide for the US government to do it there vs on the US side? AFAICT that would save the airline that brought a person who got denied a bit of trouble - vs having to take them back to their departure airport - but not be a particularly huge convenience or burden for either government at a higher-up level.
  - lmm 2y ago
    > What particular convenience does it provide for the US government to do it there vs on the US side? It reduces legal accountability (I know the US courts have generally exempted border operations from the constitution anyway, but that interpretation could change in the future) and makes it easier to prevent people from e.g. landing and claiming asylum (yes there are measures to penalise airlines and oblige them to return passengers, but they're not always fully effective). More subtly it means there's less pressure to have reasonable border rules, since turning someone away before they board is lower-stakes. And having an official, pseudo-law-enforcement presence in a country is valuable almost in itself.
    - goodcanadian 2y ago
      I would argue higher legal accountability as they are subject to the host country's laws. If you are at a US airport, you are at the whim of US border officials. If you are at a Canadian airport, you have the right to turn around and leave.
      - lmm 2y ago
        > If you are at a Canadian airport, you have the right to turn around and leave. Well maybe. What happens when you try to exercise that right? If it turns out that those US border officials falsely imprisoned you (under Canadian law - if the Canadian courts are even willing to hear the case), what consequences will they face?
- dotancohen 2y ago
  CIA torture flights?
  - lmm 2y ago
    When the US government wants to torture people from another country, it gets around legal protections by having the CIA illegally fly them to a third country. Many of those flights went via Ireland. See e.g. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/wikileaks-memo-tells-of-aherns-rendition-fears/26607357.html https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/wikileaks-memo-tells-o...
    - briandear 2y ago
      Nothing to do with US immigration pre clearance.
- briandear 2y ago
  The program is there for the convenience of Irish travelers. They can clear immigration and then when they arrive they are treated as domestic arrivals and save a lot of time.
- kalleboo 2y ago
  The programme is there for the convenience of the airlines. If someone arrives in the US and is denied entry, the airline is on the hook to fly them back. It's much better for them for the traveler to be denied before even boarding.
  - mattkrause 2y ago
    More critically, it opens up a huge number of routes for the airlines because the US destination no longer S to be an international airport with a CBP presence.
CalRobert 2y ago
I think it's absurd to have US immigration policy enforcement on Irish soil (I suppose there's a diplomatic carve-out for whether the post-immigration area is "US soil" or whatever, but still). As said policies become increasingly inhumane I think Ireland should consider removing this arrangement. But you are right, Dublin Airport themselves do benefit since it makes them more attractive, especially as a transfer airport for people going to the US from Europe.
- louthy 2y ago
  Is it “absurd”? If you’re going to be rejected access to a country, wouldn’t it be better before you get on the plane? Seems the opposite of absurd, it seems preferable.
- 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 2y ago
  UK based travellers travelling to Europe via either the Eurostar or Le Shuttle go through French immigration on UK soil before departing, this facilitates easy exit in France. Makes perfect sense to me, as a UK national I don't see this as impinging on UK Sovereignty.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  I can't even imagine a situatuion where this is not preferable. For example, if the US immigration check happens in Ireland, they can't detain you or mess with you in ways in which Ireland doesn't approve of, which they could if you were on US soil. If anything, it seems to me that the USA agreeing to perform immigration checks in Ireland and accept them when you reach the USA is a(n extremely mild) limitation to US sovereignty, not to Irish sovereignty.

lmm 2y ago

The programme is there for the convenience of the US. Would they allow Ireland to operate a corresponding facility on US soil? (The popularity of that airport for CIA torture flights also doesn't help the case, even if not directly linked)

rssoconnor 2y ago
> The programme is there for the convenience of the US. Would they allow Ireland to operate a corresponding facility on US soil? FWIW, I recall reading that the program in Canada is reciprocal, and it is simply the case that Canada hasn't decided to operate any corresponding facility in the US.
- goodcanadian 2y ago
  That is correct. IIRC, Bermuda is also part of the agreement, and I would be very much surprised if Ireland doesn't operate on the same rules.
majormajor 2y ago
It provides a good amount of convenience for US citizens, certainly. Let's talk about Toronto or Vancouver to set aside CIA whatever. What particular convenience does it provide for the US government to do it there vs on the US side? AFAICT that would save the airline that brought a person who got denied a bit of trouble - vs having to take them back to their departure airport - but not be a particularly huge convenience or burden for either government at a higher-up level.
- lmm 2y ago
  > What particular convenience does it provide for the US government to do it there vs on the US side? It reduces legal accountability (I know the US courts have generally exempted border operations from the constitution anyway, but that interpretation could change in the future) and makes it easier to prevent people from e.g. landing and claiming asylum (yes there are measures to penalise airlines and oblige them to return passengers, but they're not always fully effective). More subtly it means there's less pressure to have reasonable border rules, since turning someone away before they board is lower-stakes. And having an official, pseudo-law-enforcement presence in a country is valuable almost in itself.
  - goodcanadian 2y ago
    I would argue higher legal accountability as they are subject to the host country's laws. If you are at a US airport, you are at the whim of US border officials. If you are at a Canadian airport, you have the right to turn around and leave.
    - lmm 2y ago
      > If you are at a Canadian airport, you have the right to turn around and leave. Well maybe. What happens when you try to exercise that right? If it turns out that those US border officials falsely imprisoned you (under Canadian law - if the Canadian courts are even willing to hear the case), what consequences will they face?
dotancohen 2y ago
CIA torture flights?
- lmm 2y ago
  When the US government wants to torture people from another country, it gets around legal protections by having the CIA illegally fly them to a third country. Many of those flights went via Ireland. See e.g. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/wikileaks-memo-tells-of-aherns-rendition-fears/26607357.html https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/wikileaks-memo-tells-o...
  - briandear 2y ago
    Nothing to do with US immigration pre clearance.
briandear 2y ago
The program is there for the convenience of Irish travelers. They can clear immigration and then when they arrive they are treated as domestic arrivals and save a lot of time.
kalleboo 2y ago
The programme is there for the convenience of the airlines. If someone arrives in the US and is denied entry, the airline is on the hook to fly them back. It's much better for them for the traveler to be denied before even boarding.
- mattkrause 2y ago
  More critically, it opens up a huge number of routes for the airlines because the US destination no longer S to be an international airport with a CBP presence.

CalRobert 2y ago

I think it's absurd to have US immigration policy enforcement on Irish soil (I suppose there's a diplomatic carve-out for whether the post-immigration area is "US soil" or whatever, but still). As said policies become increasingly inhumane I think Ireland should consider removing this arrangement. But you are right, Dublin Airport themselves do benefit since it makes them more attractive, especially as a transfer airport for people going to the US from Europe.

louthy 2y ago
Is it “absurd”? If you’re going to be rejected access to a country, wouldn’t it be better before you get on the plane? Seems the opposite of absurd, it seems preferable.
6LLvveMx2koXfwn 2y ago
UK based travellers travelling to Europe via either the Eurostar or Le Shuttle go through French immigration on UK soil before departing, this facilitates easy exit in France. Makes perfect sense to me, as a UK national I don't see this as impinging on UK Sovereignty.
tsimionescu 2y ago
I can't even imagine a situatuion where this is not preferable. For example, if the US immigration check happens in Ireland, they can't detain you or mess with you in ways in which Ireland doesn't approve of, which they could if you were on US soil. If anything, it seems to me that the USA agreeing to perform immigration checks in Ireland and accept them when you reach the USA is a(n extremely mild) limitation to US sovereignty, not to Irish sovereignty.