Airlines really do not want an entire aircraft refused landing because of one person. All the pre-departure paperwork procedures exist to prevent this from happening. Airlines won't go along with "just board them anyways" schemes unless forced to do so under threat. If they do cooperate (or are forced to) it gives the destination country cause to void that airline's licenses without risk of reciprocal sanctions against its own airlines. Dragging commercial airlines into a political dispute like this won't work.
> an international flight is extremely unlikely to include only a single non-American. In such a situation, it's absurd to claim that CBP would board and arrest a single non-American.
<sigh> I was wondering if you could read my messages as written.
It is not absurd to suggest that someone on the no-fly list, or someone previously refused a visa, or someone with an arrest warrant in the US would be arrested in such a situation.
> Your Quora link doesn't support your point. It makes it clear that there are sane procedures in place (ideally, passengers never deplane) and that CBP doesn't board planes and arrest people for accidentally entering the US.
It shows that people involuntarily entering the States are processed by the CBP.
To repeat my last question, which you side-stepped:
you're saying they have the legal right to arrest people, and people will land in the States when they are banned from entry, but that it (a) has never happened, or (b) never will happen?
Only someone with an entirely closed mind would deny that it would never happen.
The fact that I can't find which article I read (years ago) is almost irrelevant. The laws permit them to do this, and no reasonable person would deny that the CBP would always sit idly by while someone on the no-fly list, or someone previously refused a visa, or someone with an arrest warrant in the US was in front of them.
> I'm going to stop engaging with your FUD.
Yeah, showing that the CBP (a) has the power to do something, and (b) has used that power... is FUD.
> and let them board an airplane to a destination of their own choosing". As in the police would be there to make sure they don't "abscond"
Maybe being overly pedantic, but "destination of their own choosing" won't work. Airlines will refuse to board, because they're generally responsible for the costs of flying that person back if they're refused entry at the destination (if their due diligence wasn't done re passport/visa, rather than an immigration official's decision).
Why is this a problem? The purported reason for checking luggage is security. Checking luggage going on to private jets does not provide a similar security benefit as it may for scheduled airline services.
For customs there are separate spot checks, but usually on arrival as it usually doesn’t make much sense to be concerned about illegal exports.
Human trafficking is a separate issue, FBO staff and private jet operators should be trained to combat such just like normal airlines do.
That training works, I’ve been on the receiving end of it as a suspected human trafficker. (My friend told the gate agent to look at my phone for his ticket because he doesn’t own one. We were both briefly detained until the airline had someone talk to him in his native language and verify that he’s there by his own free will)
So... you're saying they have the legal right to arrest people, and people will land in the States when they are banned from entry, but that it (a) has never happened, or (b) never will happen?
Come on... there's being skeptical, and there's being so closed minded that reality can't get in,
> If someone is dangerous enough to be on the No Fly List why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once?
Extend this logic just a millimeter further and you should understand how awful the no fly list truly is. If we have evidence a person is too dangerous to fly, and we're willing to let everyone know that we know they're dangerous, why wouldn't we just take them into custody and charge them with a crime? Put them in prison, or get them to roll on someone involved in their conspiracy?
But of course, there's approximately never any evidence.
>> I'm a US citizen who lives in the US. Not traveling to the US is not an option.
Why isn't it an option? The only way for you to "travel to the US" is to leave the US in the first place. You have the option to not travel outside of the US.
AFAIK, while you have to deal with the TSA, you don't have to deal with customs/immigration for domestic flights.
> TSA was giving her all of the trouble, not the airlines.
Yes, since Sept-11-2001, all harassment of passengers was outsourced to the TSA, making airlines look like the good guys. But the ID requirement was enacted and enforced before that - I am not sure when, but at least in July 2000, I was told that I won't be able to fly without an ID.
> Then why was the OP able to get a boarding pass without ID in her story?
Assuming the story is true and exactly as told (which I have no reason to doubt on one hand, but no reason to take as gospel on the other) -- because either the TSA were violating their own rules, or because they were able to satisfy the ID requirement through some procedure which is not general knowledge among the population.
> the US where the no fly list exists with little recourse.
While I suppose its technically distantly parallel to the description in the article, in that there is nothing stopping a private party from asking the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center to add someone to thie No Fly List, there’s actually no established process for such a request and no set of criteria that would make it particularly applicable to a foreign national against whom a local has civil litigation pending, so, substantively, the analogy is badly strained, especially since the No Fly List is not a general exit control.
Also, recourse for denied boarding and denied entry (but not denied exit, because the US, again, doesn’t have exit controls) is available through the DHS TRIP process, which is appealable if a satisfactory result is not received to the appropriate US Court of Appeals.
>I'm not sure if the goal is solely to stop "truly bad guys" who want to bring down a plane from getting on it, but rather make a note of anyone who might be traveling under false pretenses for any number of reasons.
This is what I'm afraid of. Is travel on a plane now squarely reserved for the honest or those with nothing to hide? There are plenty of very legitimate reasons to travel under false pretenses, including it would seem, hiding from one's own government because of some irrational administrator who decides to use air travel restrictions to carry out a grudge. The restriction on travel, especially within the US as applied to US citizens is very disturbing as it represents a fundamental erosion of our freedoms. Take a look at this case as just one example:
> For all the crap we give China and their authoritarian government, airport security is FAR easier at every Chinese airport I've been to. Walk through a metal detector and get a quick non-invasive pat down.
flying domestically I had my eyes scanned and thumb print taken, and was tracked more or less everywhere I went.
> you will be required to have a RealID to board a fight.
Which law says that?
It is possible to fly domestic without ID. I did it twice and TSA had me sign a form which basically self-declared that I am not a problem.
The ID check is to make it difficult to resell frequent flier award travel. So the TSA ID-checkers are the airline's revenue helpers.
Last summer I put a bunch of transparent tape over the picture on my passport to see what would happen with TSA. The TSA lady asked me to peel it off. That was going slowly so she called a supervisor who quickly waved me through.
>Did he get on their soil though? Usually, you stay in the international zone when between flights
for example, when US agents capture people outside US and load them on a plane to bring in to US they actually formally arrest and charge them only when the plane enters US airspace.
You simply deny the validity of their travel documents.
China does this all the time:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-deportations-ex...
Airlines really do not want an entire aircraft refused landing because of one person. All the pre-departure paperwork procedures exist to prevent this from happening. Airlines won't go along with "just board them anyways" schemes unless forced to do so under threat. If they do cooperate (or are forced to) it gives the destination country cause to void that airline's licenses without risk of reciprocal sanctions against its own airlines. Dragging commercial airlines into a political dispute like this won't work.
reply