Originally Posted by
PaxBritannica
I suspect the average passenger (eg. me) would interpret 'I am bringing in fruits, veg etc.' to refer to something specifically being imported by the passenger - such as a live plant or seeds - that have been sourced in another country. I would understand the reasons for these being a problem. I'm not sure I would necessarily see a piece of food given to me by cabin crew on board the plane as being an import in the same sense. It could have been a muffin, or a yoghurt, or a chocolate bar. I would assume the airline wouldn't have served it to me unless it had been 'approved' in some sense. This seems to me basic common sense in the normal world of paying passengers, tired after a long journey.
I'd be interested to know if airlines emphasise to passengers that fruit-based snacks served on board should be disposed off before disembarking? I don't think I've ever heard such an announcement.
Undoubtedly there are some, as you say, "average, normal passengers" who make that incorrect assumption, although I disagree that assumption falls into the basic common sense category. The question asked on the Declaration Form and/or Kiosk is very specific, straightforward, and unqualified requiring a simple "Yes or No" answer. Common sense would tells person to read the question and answer it honestly and straightforwardly. A passenger with common sense knows one can't decide for themselves what exceptions and exemptions exist. A passenger with common sense doesn't invent qualifiers if they aren't spelled-out. They aren't trick questions, or hard questions, it isn't a test. They're designed and worded to be easily understood by average, normal passengers. However, I can see how someone with the propensity to make life difficult for themselves by overcomplicating simple ideas or tasks because they don't read instructions, read things into what's not written, doesn't pay attention or try to absorb information could make that assumption. But all the aforementioned are traits of not those having little or no common sense. Average, normal passengers who read the question and simply answer the question as written aren't going to have a problem. Problems only arise when people try to get creative or cute. That being said....
This lady, however, wasn't an "average, normal passenger", not in the eyes of the CBP. She asked-for and was granted Global Entry status with expedited entry privileges, which means she had previously put herself forth to the CBP as a person who could be trusted, completed a CBP vetting process that includes being pre-educated on the Rules of entry, declaration requirements, etc,. and met a background check standard that showed a personal history of adhering to rules and laws in general. She would have gone through a face-to-face interview with the CBP and been fully advised and aware that violating the terms associated with the privilege results in losing Global Entry status as well as incurring appropriate penalties. She volunteered and was signed-off for being considered lower-risk/more trustworthy than an "average, normal passenger" by CBP.
It's because of the pre-education, background check, interview/vetting process that it's far more likely that a Global Entry passenger who makes erroneous assumptions that result in undeclared items being found will be penalized than an "average, normal passenger" doing the same (although they certainly can and many do get fined too). Global Entry passengers are held to a higher standard of understanding the rules and behavior. Part of the penalty, a $500 fine (half of what it could have been), is a punishment holding her responsible for not understanding or ignoring the Entry rules that as a Global Entry passenger she was supposed to understand and never ignore. Ignorance and/or misunderstanding may work as an excuse for an "average, normal" passenger,
but not for her because that's the responsibility that goes along with the benefit of Global Entry's expedited, usually-unchecked entry.
Most countries don't even have a Global Entry-like program which, by designating some low-risk passengers as trusted who can be expedited, is designed to reduce the length-of-wait times for not only them but the "average, normal" passengers as well. I believe that most here decrying this woman's penalty aren't actually aware what Global Entry is, what gaining that privilege entails, and that it comes with pre-education with respect to entry rules.
Part of her penalty and what she's upset about is nothing more than her being shifted from the "low-risk/trusted" expedited Global Entry process back to the "average/normal passenger" processing queues.
Most here decrying this woman's penalty as an over-reaction by CBP are not Global Entry passengers, and are relating to her situation as if she were an "average, normal" passenger like themselves. In other words, NOT passengers who will be held to the higher Global Entry standard that she was. Your question here is framed from that viewpoint,
but the Global Entry application process and pre-education is for the purpose of ensuring that "average/normal" is not the viewpoint and level of understanding of those who've put themselves forth and are granted Global Entry expedited processing. Global Entrys are expected to have no confusion re the rules and what needs to be declared.
Yet, even after demonstrating that she clearly doesn't, she publicly insists "I understand the rules". Furthermore, she's apparently so adamant in the mistaken belief she understands them better than the CBP Agent who caught her that she wants to go before a Judge in court to fight it. She'll fail in court, of course, but her statement reveals that the Global Entry application process, pre-education, and even penalties didn't have the desired effect because she's STILL assessing her own behavior through the "average, normal" passenger's viewpoint. There is a great disparity between she standard she professes to understand and what the CBP requires her to maintain vs what she actually does.
That disparity shouldn't come as a surprise given her warped sense of reality regarding things pertaining to herself as exhibited by her claim that she was "treated like a criminal". I don't know what kind of pampered world she lives in but actual criminals are physically detained, handcuffed, arrested, charged with a crime, and read their Rights, none of which happened to her. Also, when actual criminals appear in the media it's either a mug shot or while being forced to do the perp walk to the Courthouse, Jury, and Judge where the end result might be them being sent to the Big House. This is quite unlike voluntarily going to the Courthouse in order to moan before a Judge about a perceived, great unfairness of a penalty that amounts to a loss of Global Entry privilege resulting in being treated "only" like an average, normal passenger and a fine equal to a few month's worth of hot yoga class. One thing for sure, It doesn't seem to occur to her that she was treated exactly how someone caught taking undeclared items through Customs is treated. Maybe she believes she can waltz through life and when running afoul of rules or regulations due to her own inattention or ignorance, and she is entitled to being issued only warnings because of her belief it must be someone else's fault? "But, but your Honor, Delta gave me the apple!!".
Her appeal to the public through a sympathetic media (mis)casting her as an average, normal, suburban Denver woman coming home from Paris who was ill-treated with heavy-handedness at the border over a "mere apple" is designed to elicit an "Oh, that could have happened to me" reaction by the average, normal person, something she was NOT considered to be by the CBP when it comes to entering the country. As a consequence, this thread is rife with those sympathetic reactions from non-Global Entry posters with average, normal passenger viewpoints (plus the viewpoints of those who are generally ignorant of the existence and details of agricultural importation rules, who don't care about them, are too lazy to learn them, don't believe invasive species can wreck harvests, don't believe there should be punishments or penalties for anything, are hair-triggered against any authority and believe anyone who respects it is a fascist, and my personal favorite, the ever-predictable default mode of some; "this could only happen in America" as long as what happened is sold as being bad).
What those "average, normal" reactions are masking is that this woman is so intent blaming others to excuse her own failure to adhere to the Global Entry-level of responsibility she sought, agreed-to, and was expected by CBP to maintain,
she's publicly making statements that reveal her continued "average, normal" outlook (telling the media "Delta giving me the apple is the most important thing to the story". "Delta should have told me it wasn't allowed or not given out apples at all")
oblivious to the fact those statements are completely at odds with what Global Entry is all about and who it's for; people who don't need hand-holding and shepherding by outside entities like Delta, and can be trusted to completely understand and adhere to CBP rules. Someone exhibiting such cluelessness by making them in an effort to evade responsibility can't be trusted to do what's essential to make Global Entry work; self-police. She is walking, media-talking proof that no vetting process is perfect, is exactly the type of person low-grade fines are designed for, and why random-checking of Global Entry passengers is still conducted. Someone with the ability to self-police not only seeks an answer to resolve a disagreement between an assumption they've made that seems to be at odds with a rule they know (which, despite her insistence, she obviously doesn't), but even lacking knowledge they also have the ability to recognize when they are making an assumption and, knowing that's not good enough, seek clarification before they act.
It's good she's been weeded-out of the Global Entry program. If CBP found too many people like her they'd simply do away with it.
Delta and other airlines provide an inflight briefing with respect to what the Entry process and Customs rules are. Do they go up and above, singling-out and emphasizing through a PA announcement the fruit aspect just because enroute they've handed out inflight snacks, including fruit? Doubtful, but why should they? They also handed out meat-like substances as well, and psuedo-salads. The Declaration Form on the aircraft or it's duplicate at the Global Entry kiosk one must read, answer, and sign is self-explanatory. It asks if you are bringing fruit, Yes or No.
That was her hottest water.
She earned her fine and loss of Global Entry status by answering "No" to the "I am bringing Fruits.." question when she was, in fact, bringing fruit. Despite the fact that as a Global Entry passenger she shouldn't have been ignorant of the rule against importation or made the erroneous assumption she did, neither would cause or explain her answering "No" on her Declaration Form. Even the occasional fruits and vegetables that are allowed to be brought in because those bringing them have gone through the proper importation process and carry the requisite documentation must be declared by answering "Yes" by that person on their Form. The only time one answers "No", is when one actually don't have any. Simple.