TSA - Extreme Vetting

[[DHT]Osiris]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...reaching-steps-for-extreme-vetting-1491303602
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tting-visitors-to-us-share-contacts-passwords


Guardian referencing WSJ (paywalled) article concerning Trump administration potentially shifting to a more heavy-handed vetting process for inbound foreigners, to include social media logins, financial data, cell contacts, etc.

Would probably get shot down by the courts in the same way the (perceived) Muslim ban was, but a) there's always a chance it'll get passed, and b) it shows the mentality of those making decisions/hoping to make decisions.

The tourism industry will probably be the first to suffer from the USA's continued isolationist attitudes, but our overall economic status and relevance is going to fall if we keep this up. My concern is that some point, businesses are going to start shifting off the Dollar to the yen/euro which will signal the end of the US as the world's alpha power.

 

[vi edit]

Travel industry is expecting a 7+ billion dollar drop from last year due to people opting not to travel to the US.

Maybe part of MAGA was shorter waiting lines to get to the top of the Empire State Building and a slightly less busy Times Square through declining tourism.

 

[K1052]

I think the odds are increasingly good that the visa waiver program will collapse. The EU already threatened to end reciprocity over the travel ban.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Travel industry is expecting a 7+ billion dollar drop from last year due to people opting not to travel to the US.

Maybe part of MAGA was shorter waiting lines to get to the top of the Empire State Building and a slightly less busy Times Square through declining tourism.

Look at it this way, we'll get through TSA checkpoints faster now that we'll be seeing as much tourist traffic as Cuba circa 1990.

 

[dullard]

Extreme vetting has been used many times over the years without problems in the court. If there is any logical reason to deny someone entry, that has never been a problem with lawsuits.

The problem is blanket denials without logical reason simply because we don't like "them". Whether the "them" category is a religion, or a thinly veiled mask to pretend it isn't religion, or even a very explicit non-religious category you still have the same problem. You are still blanket denying people without any truly good reason, no court review, no due process, no appeal process, no concern for side-effects, they are just banned.

You can deny a specific person for a specific reason; extreme vetting does this. You cannot deny a group for a vague reason.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Extreme vetting has been used many times over the years without problems in the court. If there is any logical reason to deny someone entry, that has never been a problem with lawsuits.

The problem is blanket denials without logical reason simply because we don't like "them".

You can deny a specific person for a specific reason; extreme vetting does this. You cannot deny a group for a vague reason.

This is arguably (I would argue that it is) 'unreasonable search and seizure', expressly denied by article 14 of our fine constitution. Not really sure how it can be justified to do this, unless you suspect that person is some kind of ne'er-do-well, in which case you should have a warrant prior to doing it (or simply turn them away at the TSA checkpoint).

 

[Exterous]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...reaching-steps-for-extreme-vetting-1491303602
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tting-visitors-to-us-share-contacts-passwords


Guardian referencing WSJ (paywalled) article concerning Trump administration potentially shifting to a more heavy-handed vetting process for inbound foreigners, to include social media logins, financial data, cell contacts, etc.

Would probably get shot down by the courts in the same way the (perceived) Muslim ban was, but a) there's always a chance it'll get passed, and b) it shows the mentality of those making decisions/hoping to make decisions.

The tourism industry will probably be the first to suffer from the USA's continued isolationist attitudes, but our overall economic status and relevance is going to fall if we keep this up. My concern is that some point, businesses are going to start shifting off the Dollar to the yen/euro which will signal the end of the US as the world's alpha power.

Its the same mentality thats been in place for years. People seemed just fine with the 5x increase in device seizures and searches at our boarders under the previous administration, including denial of entry for foreign nationals if they didn't provide passwords to the device. Cell phone contacts, your twitter, facebook posts, bank apps etc were already being looked at if they auto logged in. I suspect that they were already asking for app passwords and threatening to deny entry if it wasn't provided. Wasn't a good thing then and isn't now but I'm for whatever causes people to finally get their heads out of their asses

This is arguably (I would argue that it is) 'unreasonable search and seizure', expressly denied by article 14 of our fine constitution. Not really sure how it can be justified to do this, unless you suspect that person is some kind of ne'er-do-well, in which case you should have a warrant prior to doing it (or simply turn them away at the TSA checkpoint).

Article 14 doesn't protect foreign nationals wanting to visit the US

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Its the same mentality thats been in place for years. People seemed just fine with the 5x increase in device seizures and searches at our boarders under the previous administration, including denial of entry for foreign nationals if they didn't provide passwords to the device. Cell phone contacts, your twitter, facebook posts, bank apps etc were already being looked at if they auto logged in. I suspect that they were already asking for app passwords and threatening to deny entry if it wasn't provided. Wasn't a good thing then and isn't now but I'm for whatever causes people to finally get their heads out of their asses




Article 14 doesn't protect foreign nationals wanting to visit the US

Much of the constitution has been extended to protect those who aren't direct citizens, I don't see why this one amendment should be any different.

 

[Exterous]

Much of the constitution has been extended to protect those who aren't direct citizens, I don't see why this one amendment should be any different.

Then you should read up on the legal gray area concerning our boarder crossings and the muddy court rulings surrounding them

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

 

[dullard]

Much of the constitution has been extended to protect those who aren't direct citizens, I don't see why this one amendment should be any different.

The constitution is very clear which parts apply to citizens and which parts apply to people. Otherwise, it would not repeatedly and clearly differentiate between citizen and people.

As for Article 14, it says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, a state cannot abridge privileges or immunities of citizens, but it can abridge privileges or immunities of people who are non-citizens.

However the last line says no state can deprive any person of various things including life and equal protection. For example, it would be terrible if the word "citizen" was there instead of "person". Why? If it said "citizen", then any state can execute any foreigner for any reason. That can't possibly be what the founders wanted. So, it applies to all people, citizens or not.

Courts have ruled repeatedly that the constitution applies to citizens when it says "citizen" and anyone (including non-citizens) when it says "person".

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Then you should read up on the legal gray area concerning our boarder crossings and the muddy court rulings surrounding them

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

The constitution is very clear which parts apply to citizens and which parts apply to people. Otherwise, it would not repeatedly and clearly differentiate between citizen and people.

As for Article 14, it says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, a state cannot abridge privileges or immunities of citizens, but it can abridge privileges or immunities of people who are non-citizens.

However the last line says no state can deprive any person of various things including life and equal protection. For example, it would be terrible if the word "citizen" was there instead of "person". Why? If it said "citizen", then any state can execute any foreigner for any reason. That can't possibly be what the founders wanted. So, it applies to all people, citizens or not.

Courts have ruled repeatedly that the constitution applies to citizens when it says "citizen" and anyone (including non-citizens) when it says "person".

Yeah, I know, and I find it disturbing as hell. While not expressly stated, I'd like to think that the writers of the constitution wouldn't have approved of these kinds of actions. Of course, that means little to nothing in court, and is up for argument.

 

[Exterous]

Yeah, I know, and I find it disturbing as hell. While not expressly stated, I'd like to think that the writers of the constitution wouldn't have approved of these kinds of actions. Of course, that means little to nothing in court, and is up for argument.

I agree that it is disturbing but a large number of the writers wouldn't have approved of a great many things. Thomas Jefferson would probably be horrified at the scope of our taxes, size of our government, amount of federal power and size of military

 

[fskimospy]

This is arguably (I would argue that it is) 'unreasonable search and seizure', expressly denied by article 14 of our fine constitution. Not really sure how it can be justified to do this, unless you suspect that person is some kind of ne'er-do-well, in which case you should have a warrant prior to doing it (or simply turn them away at the TSA checkpoint).

There's really no such thing as an unreasonable search at the border (or airport for inbound flights). They could probably body cavity search everyone if they wanted to.

This policy is just stupid on the merits instead of unconstitutional like the Muslim ban.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

There's really no such thing as an unreasonable search at the border (or airport for inbound flights). They could probably body cavity search everyone if they wanted to.

This policy is just stupid on the merits instead of unconstitutional like the Muslim ban.

I agree, there isn't. I do feel that there should be such a thing though, this is one of those that should extend to 'people' instead of 'citizens'.

 

[glenn1]

Its the same mentality thats been in place for years. People seemed just fine with the 5x increase in device seizures and searches at our boarders under the previous administration, including denial of entry for foreign nationals if they didn't provide passwords to the device. Cell phone contacts, your twitter, facebook posts, bank apps etc were already being looked at if they auto logged in. I suspect that they were already asking for app passwords and threatening to deny entry if it wasn't provided. Wasn't a good thing then and isn't now but I'm for whatever causes people to finally get their heads out of their asses

Article 14 doesn't protect foreign nationals wanting to visit the US

Good post. And it's not just previous administration singular but administrationS plural. Just to remind everyone if you voted for Clinton (or anyone but the Libertarian or Green Party) this go around this is what you knowingly asked for. It was happening under Bush and Obama and your vote was to continue it now. But I guess to you it was more important to cast your vote for "making the rich pay their fair share" or similar reasons or trying to screw over someone you thought has it coming to them.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Good post. And it's not just previous administration singular but administrationS plural. Just to remind everyone if you voted for Clinton (or anyone but the Libertarian or Green Party) this go around this is what you knowingly asked for. It was happening under Bush and Obama and your vote was to continue it now. But I guess to you it was more important to cast your vote for "making the rich pay their fair share" or similar reasons or trying to screw over someone you thought has it coming to them.

Eh, I'd argue that most would prefer to not have that happening, aka they are not, in fact, fine with it. It's just a risk analysis (even if it's a simple one with poor backing for most), you may WANT x, y, and z to happen, but you know the really horrible A, B, and C could happen if you let candidate 1 win. You know candidate 2 doesn't support horrible A B and C. Candidate 3 maybe is who you'd really rather see (moreso than 2, definitely moreso than 1) but unfortunately you really don't see him winning (primaries, election, whatever) so you throw your hat in with candidate 2 since chance of defeating A B and C outweighs your desire to get x y and z.

This is why we need a primary/secondary vote system (vote for preferred candidate, secondary if preferred doesn't get x% of votes).