Almost certainly. The law should also be amended to require conviction or settlement, not merely investigation, to revoke someone’s PreCheck or Global Entry status.
Overall you can have Global Entry revoked for almost anything; one of the clauses is “The applicant has been found in violation of any customs, immigration, or agriculture regulations, procedures, or laws in any country.” which falls dramatically short of a crime or investigation. There are many reports of GE revocation for stuff like failure to declare fruits at checkpoints.
Expressing your first amendment right to protest is not “almost anything.” Historically, courts have taken very dim view of government retaliation for first-amendment protected activities.
Yes, but even so doing it because of protest is a restraint on speech, and that's expressly prohibited by the constitution.
The first amendment may be frustratingly silent on fruit trade regulations, but it's 100% not unclear about abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Trusted Traveller programs are a privilege and not a constitutionally protected entitlement. They can be revoked at any time for any reason and you don't get your money back. What law are you talking about? Show us where in the Constitution it says you're entitled to cut in line at the airport.
We're now in the Find Out phase of "Let's fuck around with DHS and see if they take us off their club's VIP list".
This is textbook retaliation. Your statement is akin to a manager firing their underling after their romantic advances are rejected, and quoting at-will employment laws. Sure, you can be fired for "any" reason - except retaliation - that is illegal.
"Congress shall make no law". If there is a law, it's unconstitutional. If there is no law, then how is the executive doing it? By what constitutional authority?
Personally, I don’t think that anyone should be speaking authoritatively on this subject because it seems to me to be untested constitutional law, unless a constitutional scholar would like to chime in.
In which case, it’s up to the Supreme Court to either explicitly (through judgment) or implicitly (through denying a hearing of the case) decide.
There are also no consequences for the president, his agency leaders, legislators, or anyone else involved in this when they violate the constitution. At best, the victims sue and get money from taxpayers. The law must be changed to remove all types of qualified immunity from anyone in a government position.
Absolutely. The problem is proving in court that the pre check / global entry revocations are a direct result of the protesting. The government has levers they can use to muddy the issue and claim that it's a coincidence.
I'm not sure that they want to hide it; in any case, if it's systematic there will be thousands of these "coincidences", enough to convince a judge or jury even without investigating the revocations
Yes. Except they are attempting to make the claim that protesters are interfering with federal operations, which is a crime. Therefore, they can try to make the claim that they are only investigating potential involvement in a crime, punish you, and file it under a violation of the terms of service for precheck and global entry. IANAL, etc, but this seems to be the strategy.
Yes. So are raiding a WaPo journalist’s home, arresting observers / recorders of ICE activity, threatening to arrest teachers for speech, forcing the Ten Commandments into classrooms, or shooting a civilian who is legally carrying a firearm at a protest, etc. These are all positions of Trump or key members of his administration.
It’s clear the constitution is something in their way, not something they respect. By violating it a little bit each day, it’ll lose meaning and half the country will be primed to replace it.
Oh, sweet summer child. The Constitution isn't a magical defense against tyranny. It's a piece of paper. Nine political actors are in charge of its interpretation and they're not above completely inventing new parts to it. The presidential immunity decision will go down in history up there with the Dred Scott decision and it's particularly ironic because it makes the president an unaccountable monarch in a country that revolted against monarchy.
Let me give you a good analogy for this particular issue: anti-BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) legislation.
40+ years ago public pressure to mount against apartheid South Africa and it was incredibly successful as a global movement that culminated in toppling the regime.
You know who didn't like BDS? Israel, who interestingly was also a close of South Africa at the time. Why? Because it realized it was susceptible to the same pressure and was (and is) an apartheid state.
So a deep lobbying effort began to pass various bills to ban BDS movements. Roughly 35-38 states have so-called anti-BDS laws. In Texas, for example, you cannot be a public teacher without signing a contract agreeing to never boycott the state of Israel [1].
Is this a clear violation of free speech? Of course it is. Remember that the Fthe First Amendment is a restriction on the government restricting speech and anti-BDS legislation clearly does that.
So why is it still legal? Because courts have essentially decided that anti-BDS laws block commerce not speech and that's not a protected activity. Or rather there's (apparently) no way to determine speech from commerce.
See what I mean when I say the constitution doesn't mean as much as you think it does?
Remember too that this is the same country whose courts ruled that a Colorado law banning discrimination of same sex couples was unconstitutional because it violated the "rights" of someone for a hypothetical cake nobody asked them to make and a hypothetical website business that didn't exist making a hypothetical business nobody asked for.
So how's that relevant here? Because I can easily see the courts ruling this way: Global Entry is travel. Removing you doesn't ban your movement or restrict your speech. You can still travel to and from the country and interstate. You just have to go in the longer TSA line. Therefore it's not a restriction on speech.
Well, I didn't say that if it is a violation, we're safe and there's nothing to worry; I was honestly just asking for confirmation.
I've long been skeptical of the US constitution and the supposed checks and balances, and with this wildly partisan supreme court you indeed can't hope that the law will keep the government in check.
I agree with most of what you said, except that a better constitution would be an (almost) magical defense against tyranny, in my opinion.
I mean, yes, because it's clearly intended to have a chilling effect on speech.
But also Global Entry isn't really a thing, it's kind of just like a weird privilege some people can get ... because ... ??? It's just a fake-privilege thing. Taking it away doesn't actually prevent anyone from doing anything/going anywhere they would have anyways.
It's a privilege pretty much anyone can get if they have a clean record, pay the fee, and do the interview.
Taking it away can mean a much longer wait returning to the US. And while that certainly isn't an earth-shattering problem that is going to cost people their lives or general freedom, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the government to retaliate against someone for exercising their constitutional rights.
The idea that you can be so dismissive about that concept is a bit chilling, to be honest.
I also find Global Entry, TSA Precheck, and especially Clear to all be problematic, along with the fact that people flying on private jets don't need to go through the same TSA checks that the rest of us do. Hell, I even think it's bad to have different lines at customs for citizens vs. non-citizens. I think the most-privileged of us should use the same public infrastructure as the least-privileged of us.
My comment was a reflection of multiple different opinions on different topics.
Almost certainly. The law should also be amended to require conviction or settlement, not merely investigation, to revoke someone’s PreCheck or Global Entry status.
Overall you can have Global Entry revoked for almost anything; one of the clauses is “The applicant has been found in violation of any customs, immigration, or agriculture regulations, procedures, or laws in any country.” which falls dramatically short of a crime or investigation. There are many reports of GE revocation for stuff like failure to declare fruits at checkpoints.
How is attending a protest a potential violation of customs regulations? This doesn't track.
6 replies →
Expressing your first amendment right to protest is not “almost anything.” Historically, courts have taken very dim view of government retaliation for first-amendment protected activities.
4 replies →
Yes, but even so doing it because of protest is a restraint on speech, and that's expressly prohibited by the constitution.
The first amendment may be frustratingly silent on fruit trade regulations, but it's 100% not unclear about abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[dead]
Trusted Traveller programs are a privilege and not a constitutionally protected entitlement. They can be revoked at any time for any reason and you don't get your money back. What law are you talking about? Show us where in the Constitution it says you're entitled to cut in line at the airport.
We're now in the Find Out phase of "Let's fuck around with DHS and see if they take us off their club's VIP list".
This is textbook retaliation. Your statement is akin to a manager firing their underling after their romantic advances are rejected, and quoting at-will employment laws. Sure, you can be fired for "any" reason - except retaliation - that is illegal.
"Congress shall make no law". If there is a law, it's unconstitutional. If there is no law, then how is the executive doing it? By what constitutional authority?
Personally, I don’t think that anyone should be speaking authoritatively on this subject because it seems to me to be untested constitutional law, unless a constitutional scholar would like to chime in.
In which case, it’s up to the Supreme Court to either explicitly (through judgment) or implicitly (through denying a hearing of the case) decide.
4 replies →
Heck, you can be on a terrorism watchlist and entirely barred from flying without a conviction
There are also no consequences for the president, his agency leaders, legislators, or anyone else involved in this when they violate the constitution. At best, the victims sue and get money from taxpayers. The law must be changed to remove all types of qualified immunity from anyone in a government position.
Yes. Some would also say it violates a substantive due-process right to privacy.
Absolutely. The problem is proving in court that the pre check / global entry revocations are a direct result of the protesting. The government has levers they can use to muddy the issue and claim that it's a coincidence.
I'm not sure that they want to hide it; in any case, if it's systematic there will be thousands of these "coincidences", enough to convince a judge or jury even without investigating the revocations
Yes. Except they are attempting to make the claim that protesters are interfering with federal operations, which is a crime. Therefore, they can try to make the claim that they are only investigating potential involvement in a crime, punish you, and file it under a violation of the terms of service for precheck and global entry. IANAL, etc, but this seems to be the strategy.
I don't think that terms of service can override the constitution, in any case
Yes. So are raiding a WaPo journalist’s home, arresting observers / recorders of ICE activity, threatening to arrest teachers for speech, forcing the Ten Commandments into classrooms, or shooting a civilian who is legally carrying a firearm at a protest, etc. These are all positions of Trump or key members of his administration.
It’s clear the constitution is something in their way, not something they respect. By violating it a little bit each day, it’ll lose meaning and half the country will be primed to replace it.
Oh, sweet summer child. The Constitution isn't a magical defense against tyranny. It's a piece of paper. Nine political actors are in charge of its interpretation and they're not above completely inventing new parts to it. The presidential immunity decision will go down in history up there with the Dred Scott decision and it's particularly ironic because it makes the president an unaccountable monarch in a country that revolted against monarchy.
Let me give you a good analogy for this particular issue: anti-BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) legislation.
40+ years ago public pressure to mount against apartheid South Africa and it was incredibly successful as a global movement that culminated in toppling the regime.
You know who didn't like BDS? Israel, who interestingly was also a close of South Africa at the time. Why? Because it realized it was susceptible to the same pressure and was (and is) an apartheid state.
So a deep lobbying effort began to pass various bills to ban BDS movements. Roughly 35-38 states have so-called anti-BDS laws. In Texas, for example, you cannot be a public teacher without signing a contract agreeing to never boycott the state of Israel [1].
Is this a clear violation of free speech? Of course it is. Remember that the Fthe First Amendment is a restriction on the government restricting speech and anti-BDS legislation clearly does that.
So why is it still legal? Because courts have essentially decided that anti-BDS laws block commerce not speech and that's not a protected activity. Or rather there's (apparently) no way to determine speech from commerce.
See what I mean when I say the constitution doesn't mean as much as you think it does?
Remember too that this is the same country whose courts ruled that a Colorado law banning discrimination of same sex couples was unconstitutional because it violated the "rights" of someone for a hypothetical cake nobody asked them to make and a hypothetical website business that didn't exist making a hypothetical business nobody asked for.
So how's that relevant here? Because I can easily see the courts ruling this way: Global Entry is travel. Removing you doesn't ban your movement or restrict your speech. You can still travel to and from the country and interstate. You just have to go in the longer TSA line. Therefore it's not a restriction on speech.
[1]: https://mondoweiss.net/2019/04/federal-teacher-striking/
Well, I didn't say that if it is a violation, we're safe and there's nothing to worry; I was honestly just asking for confirmation.
I've long been skeptical of the US constitution and the supposed checks and balances, and with this wildly partisan supreme court you indeed can't hope that the law will keep the government in check.
I agree with most of what you said, except that a better constitution would be an (almost) magical defense against tyranny, in my opinion.
I mean, yes, because it's clearly intended to have a chilling effect on speech.
But also Global Entry isn't really a thing, it's kind of just like a weird privilege some people can get ... because ... ??? It's just a fake-privilege thing. Taking it away doesn't actually prevent anyone from doing anything/going anywhere they would have anyways.
It's a privilege pretty much anyone can get if they have a clean record, pay the fee, and do the interview.
Taking it away can mean a much longer wait returning to the US. And while that certainly isn't an earth-shattering problem that is going to cost people their lives or general freedom, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the government to retaliate against someone for exercising their constitutional rights.
The idea that you can be so dismissive about that concept is a bit chilling, to be honest.
To be clear, I find it horrifying.
I also find Global Entry, TSA Precheck, and especially Clear to all be problematic, along with the fact that people flying on private jets don't need to go through the same TSA checks that the rest of us do. Hell, I even think it's bad to have different lines at customs for citizens vs. non-citizens. I think the most-privileged of us should use the same public infrastructure as the least-privileged of us.
My comment was a reflection of multiple different opinions on different topics.