The stated purpose for biometrics and photos with PreCheck and Global Entry is to identify you, so it’s not likely against its stated purpose to use it for identification, per-se.
Now using it to target protesters? Meh.
Now using it to target protesters? Meh.
This is one of _many_ reasons why biometrics need to be a personal civil liberty. The individual must have the right to say "no" to _any_ "requirement" for giving up biometric data, unless they are convicted as a criminal (IMO). Because once you deliver that information, you _cannot_ trust any other party _to actually do what they say will do and destroy said data_, and that's not even considering just poor storage of said data.
Once your biometrics are in a database, you're fucked *for life* because it's completely unrealistic to have it destroyed with absolute certainty. This needs to be a *global human right*, as hard as those are to come by still.
Guess who is doing the identifying - CBP and ICE. Guess who runs borders and immigration, which is the use case for PreCheck and Global Entry?
Guess what the stated jurisdictional limits are for CBP? 100 miles from any possible border [https://legalclarity.org/immigration-map-of-us-jurisdictiona...].
Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE.
So they can pretend they are ‘checking for immigration status’ using the existing photos and biometrics, while simultaneously gathering information on who is at what protest.
Then the info gets shared once gathered - with or without plausible deniability - and blam. Bobs your uncle.
To quote a prominent US historian:
In a constitutional regime, such as ours, the law applies everywhere and at all times. In a republic, such as ours, it applies to everyone. For that logic of law to be undone, the aspiring tyrant looks for openings, for cracks to pry open.
One of these is the border. The country stops at the border. And so the law stops at the border. And so for the tyrant an obvious move is to extend the border so that is everywhere, to turn the whole country as a border area, where no rules apply.
Stalin did this with border zones and deportations in the 1930s that preceded the Great Terror. Hitler did it with immigration raids in 1938 that targeted undocumented Jews and forced them across the border.
Not ICE?
> Guess who has essentially unlimited jurisdictional limits? ICE.
ICE thinks that. The courts are disagreeing.
Unlimited jurisdictional limits - and the courts will enforce this with whose army? As it were.
ICE isn’t allowed to act on citizens either, and yet here we are.
Did you know ICE can arrest you for harboring illegal aliens?
Because 1) while they are legally allowed to do it, it isn’t their job, and 2) it is other people’s jobs.
Which is the point.
By law or policy?
The question you asked, as pointed out, is a non sequitor given the reality of what’s going on.
Not what non sequitur means nor how it’s spelled. And repeating a point in the same comment doesn’t count as pointing it out previously.
To the extent there is non sequitur in this thread, it’s in jumping into a legal discussion halfway to argue the law doesn’t actually matter because you feel like it.