Comment by JumpCrisscross
8 hours ago
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.
8 hours ago
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.
> How is attending a protest a potential violation of customs regulations?
FTFA: “Protesting isn’t a listed or ‘valid’ reason for having Global Entry revoked, but being arrested at a protest is. Impeding or interfering with the agency is. And being investigated is.”
5 replies →
The argument, if there is one, would probably be that following ICE was a violation of an immigration procedure (note that the person who had their GE revoked doesn’t claim they attended a protest, but rather that they were following ICE and got their picture taken). Given what I’ve seen of GE revocations historically, though, it’s equally likely to have been something like “you lived with a felon” or “unpaid traffic ticket became a warrant” or “family member was accused but never convicted of an obscure crime.”
There’s always been a pretty clear mantra that GE is a privilege not a right and that it’s always been an arbitrary and capricious system.
In some ways I think maintaining GE is probably as hard or harder than maintaining a low level (ie Secret) security clearance; it seems to be based on similar databases and discretion with less transparency, human touch, or opportunity to appeal.
They are at least (according to the 9th circuit) supposed to disclose why the GE was revoked though: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/05/22/2...
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.
It's trivial for the state to punish you and nearly impossible to assert your own rights. It is a very hard legal battle to get those rights acknowledged and upheld by the courts.
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]
Heck, you can be on a terrorism watchlist and entirely barred from flying without a conviction
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.
Ok, I am a Constitutional Scholar and there is no way that not getting to jump the line at the airport is a “material adverse action” because you can simply get in line. In general, there need to be damages when you talk about liability.
4 replies →
It's bad for all of us if there are privilege government entitlements. I disagree with the word privilege because anyone who hasn't been arrested seems to be able to get these things. I don't have one and haven't applied either, I should be able to get it I guess, at least before the fascists came to power.
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.