Originally Posted by
cbn42
I'm sure you're aware of this by now, but I'll answer it anyway. The airline checks your name against the no-fly database, and then the TSA makes sure that the name on your ticket, which was checked against the database, is actually the name of the person getting on the plane.
TSA definitely plays probabilities. The best example is Pre-Check, where they give expedited screening to those who have lower probability of carrying contraband. Other things like random secondary searches are also based on probabilities.
I think a one-year grace period is perfectly reasonable. They have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise people will try to fly with a 10-year old ID and insist it still looks like them.
That is the case for almost all foreigners. Even if there is DNA or fingerprint evidence available on record in their home countries, TSA doesn't have access to it.
Blame Congress for that, not the TSA.
I do blame Congress for most of the stupidity in our laws, but I also have to blame TSA for their own stupidity in the application of those laws.
In the case of RealID, my memory is a little fuzzy - is TSA's stance that non-compliant DLs will no longer be accepted as valid ID for flying specifically dictated by a law, or is it their own policy based on the RealID act?
Originally Posted by
rickg523
Article seems a little breathless to me. Which I would expect from the Washington Examiner.
But fundamentally, if these migrants are attempting to board domestic flights, they should be required to go through the same protocol as any other traveler. If they can't, take the bus or train or drive.
If however they're trying to fly to their country of origin, is the Examiner implying we shouldn't allow that until they acquire proper ID? In other words, until they attain citizenship? I would think the Examiner would be happy to see the back of them and the sooner, the better.
Would this be an intelligent policy or simply a bureaucratic knee-jerk response that the rules must be followed, even if these rules, having not anticipated this particular circumstance, are utterly in conflict with a more overarching policy?
You don't have to have US citizenship to have valid ID. However, since people who have been vetted and pose no threat are required to show valid ID to board a plane (something which provides no security benefit whatsoever), it's unfair that a whole group of people who are, by definition, nearly impossible to properly vet, should be exempted from the ID requirements for the sake of convenience.
TSA has policies in place for people who don't have valid ID - they're screened more 'thoroughly' (read: more invasively and abusively). But that's a lot of work for TSA. Using these 'notice to appear' documents as ID is a transparent form of laziness on TSA's part, a way of getting them out of fully screening all of the people in question under the no-ID policy.
The article did seem a little fearmongerish to me. But I agree in principal that TSA should be applying the same rules to all travelers with impartial consistency, and not only have they rarely done so throughout their existence, but this latest episode is a more glaring example of a whole group of people getting special treatment. Not only that, but they're getting that special treatment for the most ridiculous and frivolous of reasons: for TSA's convenience, not the travelers'.
Originally Posted by
Boggie Dog
And no one has ever thought of having a sanitized name and fake ID in order to avoid basic security methods.
We've discussed that particular logical fallacy ad nauseum here, but I think it bears repeating. ID doesn't matter, because it's far too easy to obtain fraudulent documents that allow an individual to obtain a real ID under an assumed name. Even with the RealID standards, it's not terribly difficult to use false documents to obtain an ID with a clean, assumed name, that would allow Osama Bin Laden himself to board a plane under the pseudonym Chuck Finley. You know, theoretically, and if he wasn't dead.