You left out the important part of that sentence: "...but not enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring tablets..."

Yes, see my edit below.

No, they don't...? https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/operations/p...

And the bizarreness is that they're simultaneously trusting them enough to handle immigration, but not trusting them enough to handle passenger screening.

Yes they do. Source: I've been through it recently.

That's not what he said. He wrote:

> It's also beyond bizarre that the US trusts Abu Dhabi's security enough to locate its only Middle Eastern Customs/Immigration preclearance facility, but not enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring tablets...

It's a good question.

Indeed I didn't read the sentence correctly my apologies.

However, I don't see that as a vote of confidence in them since they are still permitting flights.

I think similar could be said of the TSA in the US - the DHS trust them enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring shampoo as carry on but not enough if those shampoo bottles are greater than 3.4 ounces, despite having gone through their security.

I think its less about a vote of confidence and more about absurdist theater.

> I think similar could be said of the TSA in the US - the DHS trust them enough to let passengers who have gone through security bring shampoo as carry on but not enough if those shampoo bottles are greater than 3.4 ounces, despite having gone through their security.

This is not about DHS trusting TSA, since the specific part of DHS that makes that regulates that is...TSA.

The parallel I was trying to draw was that they don't trust the own systems and procedures, hence things like arbitrary liquid distinctions and now anything with a battery except cell phones.