Carrier sanctions kill. Airlines collaborate.

[Sign carried by Dan Malashock at San Francisco International Airport, January 29, 2017. Photo by Ruth Radetsky.]

Since the start of our work against restrictions on freedom to fly, well before September 11, 2001, we’ve been wondering what further outrage it would take to provoke mass protests at airports, and when that would finally happen.

Now we know. Thousands of protesters (including at least one of President Trump’s fellow billionaires) filled international airports across the country for several days and nights starting last weekend, in reaction against President Trump’s executive order to detain and deport any arriving non-US citizen known to be a citizen (even a dual citizen) of one of seven publicly blacklisted Muslim-majority countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia,  Syria, Sudan, and Yemen.

We’ve been talking about related issues for years. Now that they are out in the open, the question is what the outraged public will do, at whom the outrage will be directed, and how airlines — yes, airlines, and not just governments — will respond.

For what it’s worth, it’s unclear whether this executive order would apply to an asylum seeker who renounces their original citizenship in one of the blacklisted countries, even one who makes that renunciation at the check-in counter or in flight, and thereby arrives in the US stateless.  This may seem a far-fetched scenario, but it is common for stateless asylum seekers to use “invalid”, forged, or fraudulent documents to board flights, and then to destroy those documents in flight so as to arrive without papers. Deportation of any stateless person, and most of all a stateless asylum seeker, is especially problematic under international human rights law. But that’s the least of the problems with President Trump’s executive order.

Here are some key things we’ve learned from our work over the last 20 years that people — including those just now beginning to think about the right to fly, especially as it relates to immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers — need to understand about what is happening, who is responsible, what will happen next, and what can be done:

It’s about government control of movement, not just surveillance of travelers.

“Watchlist” is a euphemism. The list of countries whose citizens are barred from the US is a blacklist, not just a watchlist.

Extreme vetting” means not just searching and interrogating people before allowing them to enter the US, or surveilling them while they are in the US, but not allowing them to enter the US at all. That’s one of the reasons we have never seen this as an issue that can be completely encompassed in a rubric of “privacy”.

Tools put in place and data collected by any government will be available for use and misuse by any future government.

As we have pointed out in relation to other executive orders, anything one administration can do by executive order, regulation, or legislation can be undone by the same means. Policy restrictions on the use of data cannot protect against its misuse by future governments that can change those policies.

Any proposal for data collection or government power should be evaluated according to the danger that data and those powers would pose in the event of the worst-case scenario of what sort of government and what individual officials might inherit them.

The ongoing #MuslimBan on citizens of certain countries — even dual citizens of more favored countries, and even asylum seekers — boarding flights to the US, is made possible only by a combination of measures put in place (largely without mass public challenge) by previous US administrations:

  1. Requirements for air travelers to possess and show ID documents prior to boarding flights. (Anonymous passengers cannot be profiled, tracked, or controlled on the basis of their identities or the attributes in databases linked to their identities.)
  2. Requirements for airlines to send government agencies identifying and other information about passengers.
  3. Installation of control lines converting this notification  system into a permission system by preventing any airline from issuing a boarding pass or allowing a passenger to board unless and until it receives an individualized, per-passenger, per-flight “Boarding Pass Printing Result” (BPPR) message.
  4. Rules for admissibility to the US that overtly discriminate against citizens (including dual citizens) of, and previous visitors to, specified  Muslim-majority countries, which were signed into law by President Obama on December 18, 2015. These build on earlier written TSA policies dating going back to 2008 that explicitly discriminate against travelers on the basis of citizenship of these countries.
  5. Carrier sanctions” that fine airlines or other common carriers that transport people who are subsequently denied admission to the US. (More on these below.)

Those who don’t want the #MuslimBan continued or expanded to other categories of targets and victims should resist all of these measures, and work to have each of them overturned as unconstitutional or repealed.

The locus of the #MuslimBan has shifted from airports in the US (back) to airports, airline offices, and travel agencies abroad, and from US government agents (back) to airline check-in and ticket sales staff and contractors.

“Airlines around the world are turning away passengers, refunding tickets and rebooking flights,” the Associated Press reported on January 29th. But that was a temporary problem affecting people who had already bought tickets or boarded flights when the executive order went into effect.

This article gets asylum and common carrier law all wrong, or ignores it, but accurately describes the factual situation with the #MuslimBan.

Within a few days after President Trump issued his executive order, it was back to business as usual, with would-be travelers being refused ticketing or boarding by airlines, far away from the US and long before they could get close to US territory.

Every day, desperate asylum seekers and refugees fleeing war, persecution, and other mortal peril are turned away by airlines and airlines’ agents and contractors from buying tickets or boarding flights to the US and other potential countries of refuge. Governments encourage this, and airlines acquiesce (i.e. collaborate).

Some of these people die in the countries from which they can’t escape. Others die in the desert trying to walk across the US border, or trying to reach Europe on overcrowded boats that sink in the Mediterranean.

Governments in the US, the European Union, Australia, and elsewhere provide incentives for these airline practices through administrative sanctions ($3,000 per passenger in the US)  against those who transport anyone who isn’t admitted or whose documents aren’t deemed acceptable after they arrive.

We explained the problem in our submissions to a consultation on the rights of migrants by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2014 and 2015:

Some of the most important decision-makers for asylum seekers, refugees, and other migrants are airline and other common carrier ticket sellers and check-in staff. Many eligible asylum seekers are unable to reach places of refuge, and others die trying, as a direct result of improper denial of transportation by common carrier staff.

Many eligible asylum seekers could afford to purchase airline tickets or tickets on other common carriers (ferries, trains, buses, etc.) to travel to countries where, on arrival, they would be eligible for asylum. They risk their lives as “boat people”, and some of them die, not for financial reasons, but because airlines or other government-licensed common carriers improperly refuse to sell them tickets or deny them boarding….

Asylum seekers who are trying to leave a country where they are subject to persecution, and who are denied transport, are unlikely to have access to effective judicial review and redress through the courts of the country that is persecuting them. Airlines know that they can violate the rights of asylum seekers with de facto impunity….

Airlines routinely prevent refugees and asylum seekers from boarding flights on which they seek to depart from countries where they are being persecuted. In many of these cases, these refugees and asylum seekers would be eligible for admission and asylum on arrival in other countries, if they were allowed to travel to places of refuge.

In accordance with numerous multilateral and bilateral agreements, airlines are licensed as common carriers. As such, they are required to provide transportation to all individuals willing to pay the fare and comply with the general conditions in their tariff.

In spite of this legal obligation, airlines claim that they are authorized to deny transportation to any individual who, in their sole discretion, the airline “believes” either (a) will not be admitted to the country of their intended destination, and/or (b) lacks any of the documents the airline believes are “required” for admission to that country.

However, airlines have neither the legal authority nor the competence to determine who will, and who will not, eventually be admitted to, or granted asylum by, any country. Asylum decisions can only be made by competent authorities, and only after the asylum seeker arrives in the country where they seek asylum.

It is impossible for anyone to predict with certainty, in advance, whether a particular person will be granted asylum in any particular country.

If an otherwise-qualified passenger insists, the clear duty of an airline — under the laws and aviation treaties pursuant to which they are licensed as a common carrier — is to transport that passenger, at her sole risk that she won’t be admitted to her intended destination. If an airline won’t transport a person to a country of potential refuge, it doesn’t matter what “right” that person theoretically has to seek asylum there.

Countries that allow airlines not to transport would-be asylum seekers who the airlines think won’t be admitted prevent legitimate asylum seekers from fleeing persecution or reaching places of potential refuge, and turn unqualified airline check-in staff or contractors into de facto asylum judges of first and last resort.

See additional links and references in earlier articles in our blog:

Airlines must decide whether they will (continue to) collaborate or whether they will (begin to) resist.

There are serious questions about the validity of these carrier sanctions, especially as applied to asylum seekers, and about any law purporting to restrict the duty of a common carrier to transport passengers on the basis of speculation about their admissibility on arrival to the country of their destination.

Airlines don’t want to get involved in immigration decision-making, and don’t want to have to carry deportees. Even if the deportee can be charged full fare (as is often the case), carrying passengers who are manacled and sometimes either sedated or violently resisting being deported back to persecution and possible death can be upsetting to other paying passengers.

Protests by other passengers on these flights are occasionally reported, but are rare, despite the routine practice of transporting deportees on flights that are also carrying ordinary passengers. It’s as though people being transported to concentration camps were carried on the regular trains sitting next to “good” citizens going on holiday or going about their business, without the latter complaining.

Governments hypocritically claim that as common carriers, even reluctant airlines are required to accept deportees (and sometimes armed guards “escorting” them) as passengers, while simultaneously allowing those same airlines “discretion” (and giving them financial incentives) to refuse passage to would-be asylum seekers.

If an airline refuses to board anyone who might seek asylum on arrival (and might be denied entry and returned to their country of origin), or who for any other reason might not be admitted, they can avoid these “messy” situations. But of course, that goes against the essence of being a common carrier in the first place: the duty to transport all passengers willing to pay the fare in the tariff.

Governments are to blame for this, but so are airlines that collaborate with these anti-asylum outsourced privatized “remote border” practices, and passengers who patronize such airlines.

Airlines have challenged these fines only on the grounds that they tried diligently to ban the people the government wants them to ban, but were unsuccessful in keeping asylum seekers off their planes through no fault of their own but rather through the cleverness and deceitfulness — motivated by desperation, of course — of asylum seekers. (See, “How travel restrictions turn refugees into criminals”.)

So far as we know, no airline anywhere in the world has gone to court to challenge the general validity of carrier sanctions or document requirements, demands to identity or provide information about passengers, or requirements for airlines to obtain government permission prior to boarding each passenger.

These airlines are acting just like the trans-Atlantic shipping lines that refused to transport Jewish refugees during the Holocaust because the shipping companies feared (justifiably) that these passengers might not be admitted to the US and that the shippers would have to bear the cost and inconvenience of returning them to Europe.

We think the public would support an airline that decided to stop having its staff act as outsourced and unqualified overseas asylum judges or stopped enforcing the #MuslimBan, and left it to government officials to decide who to admit, or not admit, after they arrive.

At a minimum, airlines could and should challenge all of these government efforts to surveil and control their passengers. Airlines often have legal standing, especially under US law, that passengers lack. Airlines should defend their passengers’ rights.

The more people travel internationally, the more likely they are to oppose restrictions on travel. An international airline that defied President Trump’s carrot-and-stick efforts to induce them to continue to serve as private enforcement agents for his #MuslimBan would likely have the support of most of its passengers.

The US clearly has no jurisdiction to prevent  a foreign-flagged airliner from taking off from an airport in a foreign country, regardless of who is on board. Once a plane has touched down in the US, the passengers have the right to seek asylum in the US.

Would President Trump really order the Air Force to shoot down a civilian airliner approaching the US from a country with which the US is not at war, solely on the grounds that it is carrying some Syrian asylum-seekers among its passengers? We don’t think so.

If you don’t like the idea of putting passengers on a regularly scheduled airline flight at that risk, perhaps the first such trial should be a charter flight. In the present climate of public opinion, we don’t think it would be hard for an airline to sell out such a charter flight with a mix of asylum seekers from blacklisted countries (their tickets paid for by crowd-sourced donations), paid volunteer ticket-holding passengers, and a crew of volunteer airline staff.

Carrier sanctions and airline practices have been back-burner issues for many activists. Their use as the key components in the perpetuation of the #MuslimBan and the pushing back of US virtual borders even further away from the physical border, and onto the territory of other countries from which flights depart for the US, should now put them in the spotlight.

10 Responses to “Carrier sanctions kill. Airlines collaborate.”

  1. anonnymoose Says:

    > Would President Trump really order the Air Force to shoot down a civilian airliner approaching the US from a country with which the US is not at war, solely on the grounds that it is carrying some Syrian asylum-seekers among its passengers?

    *What??*

    Why would the Trump Administration even ponder that? There’s no need:

    * The asylum-seeker disembarks from the plane.

    * As is the case for all international travellers, the seeker is processed for entry into the US.

    * The seeker requests asylum in the US.

    * The request may be run up to the SoS or the Secretary of the DHS. If it is, and they approve the request, the seeker is permitted entry. If it is not, the seeker is denied entry and removed from the US.

    I get that signalling one’s tribal affiliation is en vogue in this day and age, but do try harder to make your worst-case scenarios even vaguely plausible.

    > …President Trump’s executive order to detain and deport any arriving non-US citizen known to be a citizen (even a dual citizen) of one of seven publicly blacklisted Muslim-majority countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen.

    Surely you’ve read the EO and are aware that that EO contains an override that can be triggered at will by the SoS or the Secretary of the DHS? This very override was used when the SDHS recently proclaimed that it was “in the national interest” to -in the absence of any “derogatory information” discovered by the FBI- grant entry to Green Card holders.

    One can read the 90-day overrideable ban on entry from “problem” countries, and 120-day overridable ban on refugee entry from Syria as racist, anti-Muslim state policy.

    One can also look at the SNAFU of the past weekend, look at the stated purpose for the overridable bans in the EO, and reasonably presume that the reason for the bans is to prevent what happened this past weekend.

    If in eighty-five-ish days the non-refugee ban is lifted, and if there are no more SNAFUs like the one that happened last weekend, wouldn’t it be reasonable to say that that SNAFU was a cock-up, rather than part of a sinister plot, and that the stated Purpose of the order is actually fairly likely to be the actual purpose for the orders described within it?

  2. Edward Hasbrouck Says:

    @anonnymoose — You ask, “Why would the Trump Administration even ponder that? There’s no need: The asylum-seeker disembarks from the plane….”

    But existing rules, which predate the executive order and remain in force, require the airline to send complete copies of reservation records (PNR data) and details of travel documents for all passengers and crew to the US government before the flight departs for the US. If this is not done, if any of the passengers or crew are undocumented, or if the US does not deem them all acceptable (in advance, which is per se impossible for asylum seekers who lack some other documents and basis for admissibility), the US will refuse permission for the aircraft to enter US airspace.

    As we have reported, aircraft bound for the US or intending to overfly the US have repeatedly been refused permission to enter US airspace, and required to divert or return to their point of origin, if the US disapproved of any of their passengers:

    https://papersplease.org/wp/2009/05/16/air-france-passenger-data-and-no-fly-orders/

    https://papersplease.org/wp/2010/06/07/another-paris-mexico-flight-barred-from-us-airspace/

    https://papersplease.org/wp/2011/07/25/mexico-barcelona-flight-barred-from-overflying-the-us/

    So a flight whose operator declined to provide this information to the US in advance, or that reported that it was carrying undocumented asylum seekers, would be refused permission to enter US airspace.

    These asylum seekers would never get the chance to disembark from the plane on US soil and make an asylum claim in the unless (a) the pilots ignored orders from US air traffic controllers to divert or return, and not enter US airspace, and (b) the US allowed the flight to enter US airspace and land in the US, and didn’t force it to leave US territory before landing.

    There is some chance that such a flight would be forced to land at a US airport after entering US airspace, in which case the passengers would have a chance to seek asylum in the US. That’s the best-case scenario for such a flight.

    But is seems likely that such a flight would be intercepted in US airspace before reaching any US airport, and an effort made to force it to leave US airspace before landing.

    As for the “override that can be triggered at will”, this sort of “at will” discretionary authority is the definition of “arbitrary”. It can sometimes mitigate (and sometimes aggravate) the damage caused by improper rules. But it cannot restore the rule of law or cure the impropriety of those rules. And there has been no public discussion of granting “waivers” from the “MuslimBan to asylum seekers from Syria or other countries on the blacklist who don’t have US visas on any other basis, and who may not even have passports.

  3. Edward Hasbrouck Says:

    The US has also revoked all visas of citizens of the countries blacklisted by the #MuslimBan, without notice to the affected individuals, including those currently in the US:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/foreigners-trapped-in-the-united-states-by-new-policy.html

    But at least those already in the US have the theoretical possibility of seeking asylum, as a basis for remaining in the US. Citizens of the blacklisted countries currently outside the US don’t have this option, and won’t have a legal chance at asylum in the US unless some airline starts transporting them.

  4. anonnymoose Says:

    > As we have reported, aircraft bound for the US or intending to overfly the US have repeatedly been refused permission to enter US airspace, and required to divert or return to their point of origin, if the US disapproved of any of their passengers: … So a flight whose operator declined to provide this information to the US in advance, or that reported that it was carrying undocumented asylum seekers, would be refused permission to enter US airspace.

    So then -of course- no airline has ever been fined $3000 per passenger for conveying people who were turned away at the border, as passengers are pre-vetted using PNR data and passenger travel documents even before the flight leaves the ground and begins its trip to the US. Obviously. 😉

    I suppose you’re right, though. The Air Force could be ordered to shoot down a plane for containing people that would be turned away at the border in the same way that Ginsburg could use polonium to poison her political opponents. (That is to say that both events are _physically_ possible.)

    > As for the “override that can be triggered at will”, this sort of “at will” discretionary authority is the definition of “arbitrary”. It can sometimes mitigate (and sometimes aggravate) the damage caused by improper rules. But it cannot restore the rule of law or cure the impropriety of those rules.

    Part of the analysis required to determine if a broad authority is warranted is to look at the scope of that authority, the duration of that authority, the reason for that authority, and the way in which that authority is being used.

    A calm, level-headed look at the EO and the stated reason behind the 90-day ban on non-refugee entry from “problem” countries indicates that this authority is likely rooted in a genuine desire to keep granting entry to high-priority and other aliens that the SoS/DHS has the time and resources to screen while new screening procedures are implemented. The EO tells us that The President has instructed the named Secretaries that visas should be issued when the entry of that individual is in the national interest. The EO also tells us that this particular discretionary override depends on the existence of the immigration ban enacted in the EO, and that the authority granted does not grant any new powers to the affected Secretaries.

    As to the “arbitrariness” of the authority granted to the SoS and the SDHS in the EO:

    Have you ever been hired to perform highly-specialized work? Have you ever had to perform said work under the direction of a manager who lacked the training and experience required to understand the work that you were performing? Have you ever had that manager order you to perform that work in such a way as to make it impossible to deliver the work requested at the quality level demanded, and then threaten to fire you if the work was not done in the way the manager ordered?

    Good bosses know when they don’t know enough to tie the hands of their trusted employees.

    If we look around, we see that that discretionary override appears to be getting used as we would hope that it should be used. Search for articles with headlines like “Trump Administration Reverses Course” for good examples.

    > But at least those already in the US have the theoretical possibility of seeking asylum, as a basis for remaining in the US. Citizens of the blacklisted countries currently outside the US don’t have this option…

    They do have that option. The EO gives the SoS and the SDHS the same power to override the refugee entry ban as it does the non-refugee entry ban. Honestly, I don’t see how use of this power is any more arbitrary than the process by which we choose which of the few-thousand refugees we’ll permit to enter the country each year.

  5. Edward Hasbrouck Says:

    @anonnymoose — You say, facetiously, “no airline has ever been fined $3000 per passenger for conveying people who were turned away at the border, as passengers are pre-vetted using PNR data and passenger travel documents even before the flight leaves the ground and begins its trip to the US.”

    Airlines are fined, *not* because they deliberately transport undocumented asylum seekers (or any other undocumented passengers), but because asylum seekers — knowing that they will not be transported without documents, and desperate to escape persecution — present forged, stolen, altered, borrowed, fraudulent, or otherwise invalid documents to airlines in order to board flights.

    Usually asylum seekers know that these documents will not be accepted for admission to the US. The fraud is committed solely in order to reach the US, with the intention of seeking admission to the US, not on the basis of these papers but as an asylum seeker. Often these papers are destroyed in flight. Airlines know that this is the norm.

    See, “How travel restrictions turn refugees into criminals”:

    https://papersplease.org/wp/2016/07/05/how-travel-restrictions-turn-refugees-into-criminals/

    Some asylum seekers who successfully use invalid documents to board flights reach the US and have their asylum claims denied. In these cases, airlines are fined.

    Much larger numbers of refugees are unable to obtain papers sufficient to board flights. They continue to suffer persecution, unless they resort to irregular means of transport, which are typically both illegal and dangerous.

    The greater arbitrariness is not in who is admitted on arrival, but in who is allowed to board flights to places of potential asylum.

    Should skill or luck in acquiring forged, stolen, altered, borrowed, or fraudulent documents be a de facto prerequisite for eligibility for asylum?

  6. Papers, Please! » Blog Archive » Searches at airports and US borders Says:

    […] Trump’s Executive Order expanding the pre-existing and ongoing #MuslimBan from foreign airports to US points of entry, by forbidding entry to the US by citizens of specified […]

  7. Papers, Please! » Blog Archive » Executive Orders, lawsuits, and the right to travel Says:

    […] also worth noting that the same principle should apply as least equally to “carrier sanctions” and the pre-existing and continuing denial of permission for asylum … as to denial of entry on arrival in the US. A “hearing” before an airline ticket sales […]

  8. Papers, Please! » Blog Archive » What should you to do if you are asked for your password at a US airport or border? Says:

    […] answer questions, the US can deny you entry. As in the latest legal cases challenging the #MuslimBan executive order, the US government claims that people who aren’t US citizens have no rights […]

  9. Papers, Please! » Blog Archive » Asylum seekers and the right to travel Says:

    […] Executive Order. Most of our comments on #MuslimBan 1.0 apply equally to #MuslimBan 2.0, which will continue to be enforced (illegally) primarily by airline and travel agency staff at ticket offices and check-in counters at foreign […]

  10. Papers, Please! » Blog Archive » Palantir, Peter Thiel, Big Data, and the DHS Says:

    […] including a U.S. citizen, can be denied boarding by an airline, anywhere in the world, on the basis of a “Boarding Pass Printing Result” or […]

Leave a Reply