Agreed, thanks for responding. I think the UAV's surveillance capabilities are better than other types of aerial surveillance used in the past like fixed wing aircraft and airships. If used with rapid deployment forces, it could make a difference on our borders. Of course, increasing the number of BP officers would also help.

I can think of a few:

• Workfare
• Passenger harassment
• Dragnet beginning point
• Comic relief after waiting in line for so long
• A potential chance to meet a supervisor or LEO

Have it fire a couple missiles and I bet that will change.

Number 9.

College kids with a fake ID, petty thieves with a stolen credit card, and illegal immigrants are not a threat to commercial aviation.

Wow. This veered off course pretty quickly, but I guess my post wasn't clear. My issue was with educating folks about how willing they are to sacrifice their civil liberties to the impotent god of security all the while chanting the mantra of "9/11" like they are the former mayors of NYC.

With TSA operating under the belief that a real name/fake BP at the TDC followed by fake name/real BP at gate is impossible, and yet that the name of a passenger can be a threat to aviation, it seems inevitable the smart people, people with some power will eventually buy into the hype.

I have not offered a solution. I am at a loss to even start to formulate a solution because the situation may be out of control. In fact, I specifically stated that there may not be a solution.

Control of the borders and the coasts will be part of the solution, the question is how do we do it. How do you control thousands of miles of border and coastline without draconian action? How is it paid for? It is very much part of why this may not be solvable.

The solution, if there is one, will depend on individual respect for our law and fear of the repercussions for breaking it.

We do not at this time have the political will to create this atmosphere of respect. It is not a current problem specific to a single political group. This lack of will goes back for many years.

At their basic, internal ID checks say, since we can not control who gets in, we will try to spot check for our failures and correct it one perpetrator at a time.

It is the same in microcosm with the infuriating gate checks. In a very controlled system with limited access and checks of everyone who crosses, it is still felt to be necessary to do additional random checks inside the sterile area. Why, unless one knows that the system allows failures and spot checks inside will correct the failures?

You are correct. Let me be the first to get a wheel back up on the road. Let's solve this unsolvable problem and leave the other one to the experts.

They understand that the system is trying to stop the unstoppable, that it is set up to identify specific threats from random and unpredictable sources, that it must make millions of inspections before the possibility of detection of the one breach, and that in the end, this system can not be perfect, and none could be. So, they hope it works. They want to believe it works because the alternative is unthinkable. It is a matter of faith.

"This looks ridiculous on its face, but I am going to trust you because you may have greater knowledge than me."

"I can not secure myself, so I will trust you to provide my security and safety."

"The system has much greater power than I do to detect threats and I will trust them to do their job."

"Wow, look at all of the action and hustle and bustle trying to secure little ole me. I believe they must really care about my safety and security."

Sounds like faith to me.

But, I reserve the right to be absolutely wrong. I hope I am wrong.

First step is to control the borders.

How to ensure only people who are authorized to receive social services, when applying I think it would be appropriate to determine if a person is in fact eligible for said services and yes this would include "papers please" requirements.

In my state for example to get a DL renewal now requires proof of who you are so why should it be different for someone who is in the country illegally?

I believe there are times when having to ID yourself is required, I don't believe doing so to cross a TSA Checkpoint is one of those times since a person is not requesting anything from the government, local, state or federal.

I wonder if part of this guy's opinion is that he seems himself as a train conductor being in a pseudo-LEO role (in the same way that TSOs seem to see themselves in a pseudo-LEO role, and private security guards). I suspect (though have no way to prove) that most *real* LEOs wish that they could demand ID from people on the street without cause, because they feel it would make their lives easier and perhaps even make the streets safer. Even some (the few?) LEOs who realize/accept the good reasons for not allowing on-demand ID checks may still partly wish they were allowed.

I do think some serious education regarding travel restrictions during the Cold War, Nazi era, and others, is needed. I think (but may be wrong) that 25 years ago Americans "got it" when it came to not requiring internal passports and checkpoints for travel compared to what life was like in "bad" places like East Germany and the USSR. I think part of the problem is that most of the papers-please checks these days don't involve actual papers--you request permission to travel from the government every time you check in for a flight, but it's all electronic and doesn't actually involve getting a form from a government agent granting permission.

What people don't realize is that the infrastructure is in place to add a few more fields to Secure Flight and then start denying travel permission. During the next oil crisis or to combat climate change, the government could add criteria as to if your air travel is "worthy." Business trip? Maybe, but only so many per year. More than one trip to see grandma each year? No. Crazy grad student who starts dating a girl who lives 2000 miles away (my story)? No. Mileage run? Heck no. Travel to attend a rally for the political party in power? Yes. Travel to attend rally for the opposition? No.

Once this happens it will be beyond too late. And it all derives from ID checks.


This phrase outrages/triggers me as much as "an abundance of caution" at this point. There was and is no requirement that 9/11 change anything about our domestic way of life. The USA's reaction to 9/11 has changed a lot of things, but 9/11 itself changed nothing. When someone says "9/11 changed everything," what they really mean IMO is that 9/11 scared them and that they have allowed their fear to cloud rational judgment. Again, people need to learn their history and take a lesson from the British, who endured much worse than 9/11 during WWII and who endured ongoing terrorism over the Troubles for years.

Perhaps it is right to excuse some hysteria and overreaction in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Perhaps for 6 or 12 months. But not for nearly a decade.

Given all that has happened, I think we would have been better off if on 9/12 we had dusted ourselves off, hardened cockpit doors, resumed air travel, obliterated Afghanistan with overwhelming force to the point of making in unsuitable for terrorist activity due to lack of any resources whatsoever including population and arable land that could grow poppies (and then left, not spent 10 years rebuilding the state), made it clear that we would do the same to the next morons who tried something like that, and then moved on with our lives. And perhaps halted issuing visas to citizens the home countries of the 9/11 attackers for 6-12 months as a bit of economic and cultural saber rattling. (If a bunch of prospective students and their rich parents, prospective H1B visa workers, etc., had to defer their plans for a year due to a visa ban, I suspect local vigilante justice would do a lot to address the terrorist subculture in these places.)

If 9/11 happened once per month for a year, it would still be fewer deaths than we have on the highways in the year.

With the money we have spent on DHS & TSA, we could have rebuilt the WTC from the ground up more than 5 years ago, thoroughly compensated victims' & families as best as possible, sealed our borders, stepped up real law enforcement drastically (the kind that uses investigations and search warrants, not dragnets), and still had $ to spare.

OK.

So they come to E.R., where service cannot be denied.

So either deny E.R. service to those without proof of medical insurance (which is a problem for those who have insurance but don't have their insurance cards), or making it easier for aliens to be authorized to receive services.

If one is in favor of free trade, then one should be against most immigration laws which exist primarily to protect legal residents from competing for jobs, such as tarriffs exist to protect domestic manufacturers and growers from competing for sales.

If an alien has no criminal record, and has a plan for supporting himself, then why should anyone care if he gets a job, pays taxes, obtains health insurance, buys a car, leases an apartment etc? If any alien without a criminal record is permitted to reside and work in the USA, then what will happen is that 99.9% of aliens will use legitimate points of entry. My guess is that the vast majority of illegal aliens are law abiding except for being illegal immigrants and not paying taxes out of fear of being discovered. For those who would not qualify for a residence/work permit, they might continue to try to enter illegally, but if the penalties for using illegal points of entry were raised (and of course, if the border were more clearly marked to prevent accidental border crossing), such activity would be sharply reduced.

Anyway ..

• The ID checks at airports, and eventually train and bus stations exist solely to protect the revenue of the passenger transportation industry. They have nothing to do with controlling borders.
• The liquid checks at airports exist solely to protect the revenue of the airport concession industry. They have nothing to do with preventing explosives on planes.
• The pocket knife checks at airports exist solely to justify an expensive FAM program (i.e. if pax on board can't respond to a hijacker with their own pocket knives in hand, then obviously we need a FAM to protect us). They have nothing to do with preventing hijackings.
• The X-ray your wallet, jewelry, laptop, etc. checks at airports exist solely to allow some TSOs to steal from you (otherwise the TSA would have a professional system like that used in FRA where when pax goes through the WTMD his stuff, and only his stuff goes through the X-Ray, and only the pax and no other pax has access to his stuff. That way if something is stolen, everyone knows it was the screener). They have nothing to do with preventing explosives on planes.
• The mandated TSA locks on checked luggage exist solely to allow some TSOs to steal from you. They have nothing to do preventing explosives on planes.
• The imaging of your naked body at airports exists solely to make ex-government employees who now sell WBIs wealthy. They have nothing to do with preventing explosives on planes.

It is always about money: that is finding ways to part you from your money.

I simply cannot tie free trade and legal immigration together. To me they are not related.

Immigration should be controlled to keep certain persons from entering a country.

What is your stand on the immigration laws in Mexico?

Law enforcement who investigate white collar crime has said for years "Follow the money, you'll find your crook!"

Unless he is also a member of a sleeper cell of some terrorist organization.

Unless that thief is channeling the ill-gotten funds to a terrorist organization.

Unless he IS a member of a terrorist organization.

You have to look beyond the end of your nose. Much of what you believe changes under a different light. The 9/11 hijackers all had a visa of one type or another, yet all were also criminals as well. To ignore a criminal just because it is unknown weather he presents a threat to an aircraft would not be the course of wisdom. Most people realize the truth of that, most people. Most people do not frequent this forum.

All of which are NOT TSA's jobs to find, Ronnie. What you're describing is the job of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, ICE, and CBP. NOT TSA. Do you get that ALL your job is the screening for WEI?

Repeat after me. You do NOT operate a dragnet. You are NOT the first or last line of defense from terrorists.

You have no proof of any of those allegations you make for what they "may" be, nor is any of the responsibility TSA's for finding a "sleeper", a "money channeler", or "terrorists." Your reasons are nothing more than high hopes for finding some sort of relevance for your agency where none exists.

So how exactly do you tell if someone is an illegal immigrant based on ID presented at the checkpoint?

Simple. They're not as American as the screener. Of course, that makes everyone suspect of being here illegally ...

Antlers