Another non-responsive answer from the uber-American super security expert TSORon.


Not surprised, your response is consistent with your history when presented with a question you can't answer

I agree with you. Could you please list the several purposes you believe the airport ID checks serve?

That was good.

You provided the answer in your question. Now, can you find it all by yourself or must I lead you by the hand?

They were not criminals when they boarded the planes. Two were on the FBI's watch list, but not CAPPS. You are assuming that all would have been on the now-in-force NFL, I don't know what you base this on. Oh BTW, all their ID's would have passed the TDC - they may have been bogus but they were valid. I hope you know the difference, but...

Actually, each and everyone was in the country illegally at the time. I kinda think they were criminals. Their ID's more than likely would not have been caught at TSA.

FB

In other words, you've got nothing meaningful to say.

The FBI was pursuing Hamzi and Mihdhar in August 2001 as possible suspects in the USS Cole bombing. All the hijackers had valid visas, Mihdhar being the last to arrive in July, so I'm not sure where you get "in the country illegally". INS had had the opportunity to stop each and every one as they entered but had (apparently) no reason to do so.

I should have written convicted criminals, obviously they were guilty of conspiracy but I think one has to be charged to legally qualify as a potential criminal. AFAIK it has not been definitively established if one or more were using alibis but no criminal records were found when issuing visas. I hope. (NB. Binalshibh the likely number 20 had been denied a visa.)

The acid test is: if a similar 'clean' group of terrorists, armed with valid visas, presented themselves at a border today what would happen ? Yes, they would be fingerprinted and photographed, then what ? Detained - why ? Turned away - on what basis ? Put on the NFL - maybe ?

They came in under the radar. The radar may be a bit better now but it's far from ironclad.

I get in the country illegally because I know Immigration Law very well. You have touched on a topic that we could write for hours about. They were all in the country illegally. All of their visas were obtained by fraud, which by US Immigration law made them illegal at entry. If the US Laws had been followed as they should have been the visas would never have been issued. Most if not all of the visa applications were not complete and contained errors. Yes, their documents were valid but should not have been issued. Several had problems during their entry, Visa questions, purpose of travel and adjustment questions and were given waivers because we didn't want to inconvenience travelers

I have heard numerous times in this forum "we should not be hassling people over minor errors." The system at that time very much subscribed to that mindset. It was taken advantage of be those that wished to do us harm. The processes are in existence for a reason. The more exceptions to the processes you introduce the less effective the process becomes. There were very large problems and gaps in the system back then. A lot of work has been done to fix the problems. A lot of progress has been achieved but it is not perfect and has a long way to go. It never will be perfect. You strive to be as effective and close to perfect that you can be. It will never be ironclad. Folks here rebel at the limited questions that get asked on entry now. The percentage of real in depth interviews that are performed on entry are very very low. There is a book called 9/11 and Terrorist Travel it is a good read if for nothing else it gives the public a look at copies of the actual documents used and the visa applications used to obtain them.

FB

Looks like there were two failures then. State failed in that they issued visas that never should have been issued, and whoever was doing customs and immigration (not sure if it was INS at the time? I didn't travel internationally then) also messed up by letting them in. The important thing to realize is that checking people for ID at the airport would have done nothing to prevent 9/11 as in this case, their documents appeared to valid. @:-)

Problem is that once they're in, there isn't much the average person is going to be able to do to tell if a person is here legally or not when they present a passport with what appears to be a valid visa. TSA, even if that were there mandate, certainly wouldn't be able to tell. Security at the time of 9/11 wouldn't have been able to as well.

LOL! Another non-answer! Run Forest Run.....

Your a hoot Ronnie.... I bet you kill in the break room...

Agree about some of the visas, although those who claimed to be here for flight training actually were (to start with). Anyway, I think it's a semantic nicety - if the INS did not stop them at entry they had been, to all intents, legally admitted.

Atta and al Shehhi visas: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/terrorvisa1.html
Others: http://old.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp

Drunk frat boys: The New Face of Terrorism�

Completely related even if you can't see that free trade of labor and free trade of products are the same.

Indeed your inability to tie the two together is at odds with your government.

One of the provisions of the Canada/US Free Trade agreement (before NAFTA) was to allow free movement of labor between the two countries. For many classes of labor, it was a simple matter to obtain a visa at the border and thus be allowed to worked as an alien in either country. I believe the visa for Canadians working in the USA was a TC-1. EDIT: it wasn't really a visa; more of a status. In general Canadians don't need visas to come to the USA for most purposes.

When the Canada/USA free trade treaty was expanded to include Mexico: NAFTA, the TC-1 became the TN-1. However, NAFTA was a racist treaty because it excluded Mexicans from enjoying the same access Canadians had to the US labor market. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TN_stat...ens_in_the_USA in 2004 Mexicans were finally allowed access but this strikes me a B.S., because it also says:I know Mexicans in the USA who desparately want to get their relatives out of there due to the USA's drug war. These numbers are way too low. There must be something preventing more. Sure, enough,

http://www.kateraynor.com/en/work-ba...s/TN-Visa.html
Racist!

What are 'certain persons'?

I'm not familiar with those laws. Bring me up to speed with references and I'll give you my opinion. I have heard that the Mexican government treats potential/illegal immigrants from south of the Mexican border worse than the USA treats potential/illegal immigrants from south of the US border, so I suspect I would not think very highly of Mexican immigration laws. In general, I'm not much of a fan of immigration laws that keep out healthy law abiding people who bring something of value: hard working, wealth, skills, etc.

EDIT: if your point is that Mexico is hypocritical I won't disagree. If the USA made it a precondition for eliminating the TN-2 quota that Mexico provide reciprocity for Americans on its equivalent of TN-2 visas, then I think the Mexican government would do so.

Free trade of labor and free trade of products are not the same. The correct concept is free movement of labor, which you refer to later. Countries do not trade labor.

It is very difficult to get into Mexico and Canada to work. I know as I have done both. I am currently in a lengthy process to get a LMO to work for two days in Canada. Even if approved, I will need to purchase a work permit at $150C for the two day job. Twice in the last twelve months while trying to enter Canada on a NAFTA exemption that I have been using since the treaty was signed I was turned back at the border. A reinterpretation of the regulations led to my being returned to the USA and the need for an LMO that was not needed before.

For many, many classifications of workers there is no free movement of labor, unless one chooses to cross the border under false pretenses and take work without the knowledge of the other country. In that case, were I to do that, I would be a lawbreaker in either Canada or Mexico, subject to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment. That is the reason I work doubly hard to get the proper paperwork, cross at a port of entry, state my reason for entering the country and how long I will stay, and buy the proper permits. It is illegal to do otherwise.

It is also illegal here. But, a lot of folks do not seem to care or want to justify their actions with excuses or emotional reasoning.