As you know, after 9/11 airlines were required to install hardened cockpit doors. But what if the door is open so the flight crew can get dinner or take a pee? Terrorists could then storm the cockpit.
The answer is a secondary barrier, and now, two decades later, new legislation finally requires this. Better late than never, amirite? But in the New York Post article about this, I was more interested in a follow-up comment:
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn) said it’s still not enough. “It’s an important measure in preventing hijacks, but we also need more stringent regulations when issuing government IDs and to stop illegal immigrants from boarding airplanes with [arrest] warrants as their sole identification, as the TSA has admitted is occurring,” said Malliotakis.
Surprisingly, it turns out this isn't just made up. But it's also not entirely right.
Non-citizens—legal or otherwise—often don't have driver's licenses or similar forms of ID, so TSA will accept other documents from them. Among other things, it accepts documents from Homeland Security if they can be validated. They are then cross-checked against the government's terrorist screening database. Amusingly, one of the acceptable DHS documents is an arrest warrant.
At first glance this seems a little crazy, but as TSA explains, they're in the business of stopping terrorists, not checking citizenship status. As long as they don't have reason to believe you're going to blow up the plane, the rest of your life is not their concern. A moment's thought suggests this makes perfect sense: do we really want to start adding other kinds of checks to TSA's remit? Felons? Child molesters? Gaza protesters? Communist sympathizers?
Nonetheless, it turns out that Republicans have been squawking about this for years. Not just for arrest warrants, but for any DHS document. They apparently think that non-citizens with DHS documents shouldn't be allowed to fly on airplanes, full stop. I'm not sure why.
"They [Republicans] apparently think that non-citizens with DHS documents shouldn't be allowed to fly on airplanes, full stop. I'm not sure why."
Because they're hateful bastards who take joy in immiserating anyone who isn't in their political/ethnic tribe? The cruelty is the point, anyone?
This is 100% true and I'm not sure how Kevin can't see it. Republicans know their base is made up of hateful xenophobes, and Trump showed them that open cruelty to dark-skinned people stimulates the pleasure centers of their demented brains, so they use that to gin up votes and money.
This isn't hard to understand.
Unless someone is a legal refugee, is legally present but as lost their passport, or a handful of other exceptions, they should have US ID or a foreign passport with a valid visa if they are getting on a plane. Why is this remotely controversial?
If someone is illegally present in the US the only plane they should be able to get onto is one leaving the country, and only if they have no outstanding arrest warrants.
I have spent most of my life outside the US and I can guarantee to you that you cannot get on a plane in most other countries unless you have a passport or valid documentation on why you do not have a passport (ie. a police certificate stating that you have lost your passport and are flying to a city with your country's consulate to get a replacement.)
Why do you think illegal immigrants should be allowed to fly on planes?
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
MF is a troll. Do not feed it.
It is extremely unusual to be required to produce a passport for domestic flights in any country.
For foreigners who are not local residents with local ID?
Please name a country that you think does not require this. In general, countries do not accept foreign ID other than passports and you must have ID to fly.
I didn't read your tripe, because you are exhibit A for hateful bigots, Motherfucker. So here's my offer to you. Go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw because you are a stain on the human race.
Hope that clears up what I think of you and your ilk.
Well, that was certainly a convincing argument!
Pretty sure Kevin’s last line was sarcasm
Initially, I though Kevin's "I'm not sure why" was just dry sarcastic snark. But apparently others read it differently and, upon reflection, I'm inclined to agree with that view. IOW, Pollyanna Drum strikes again. Can he really not see at this late date (it's been going on for more than a generation, though admittedly it's been getting increasingly worse since Obama's election) that cruelty is the sole or primary driver of most of what right wingers do and is at least a significant factor in just about everything else.
No. This sort of thing is cross-party.
Look at the Green New Deal. Could have been JUST a bunch of climate measures that most people were on-board with, but was overloaded with a bunch of irrelevant DEI/SJW measures.
This is just the way it works. There are always people, on either side, who care more about some weird pet issue than about the actual matter at hand. It's hardly Republican specific; it's just if you are Democrat then you don't see the weird issues that get layered on by Democrats as anything exceptional and crazy.
"DEI"
Fuck off you, racist piece of shit.
Performance hate. That’s it.
Why not ban people who are out on bail and also those who are convicted felons waiting for sentencing, with with usual carve out for such persons who are running for President.
Why would we ban such people? They are legally present in the US and allowed to travel so why shouldn't they be allowed to fly unless their conditions of release prohibit that?
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
MF is a troll. Do not feed it.
They apparently think that non-citizens with DHS documents shouldn't be allowed to fly on airplanes, full stop. I'm not sure why.
Presumably the "why" is because they're more motivated than Democrats are by concerns regarding unauthorized immigration, and want to make life more difficult for people living in the United States in contravention of our immigration laws.
In general I vehemently oppose the GOP's stance on immigration (I want us to greenlight a substantial increase in legal immigration inflows; and I regard the panic over migrants as fundamentally stupid in a country that really does need more workers).
That said, I don't think this particular policy position of the GOP's is all that unreasonable. I'm also not sure it would be such a big "burden" on airport security to bar people without legal status from boarding planes. For instance, you can't get on a plane or a train in China without providing proof you're in the country legally, and it doesn't seem to be a very big deal. Of course, we'd need to tweak/reform our ID protocols to change or adopt such an M.O. Here's where Kevin's long-championed idea for a national ID would come in handy.
Until my spouse can find a job I will fight you to the death over needing more workers.
Your spouse should show up at a local farm and offer to pick berries for 16 hours a day with no benefits. I guarantee a job there!
Nope, they don't hire untrained people.
I didn't know you were a xenophobe.
Why do you think your spouse isn't more available or competent than a refugee?
Until my spouse can find a job I will fight you to the death over needing more workers.
There's always frictional employment. If we only allowed immigration when there was literally not a single unemployed American, our population would be a third of what is today and we'd probably be speaking German.
Every year or two I hear someone on NPR arguing that we have a severe shortage of labor, but every year or two they have someone else saying that all our jobs are going to disappear because of automation.
My view is that there has never been a shortage of labor during my lifetime (67 years). Real wages have been pretty stagnant for the bottom 90% of the population for most of the last 50 years. They certainly haven't kept up with GDP growth the way they did from the early 40s to the early 70s. The average household in the bottom 90% would have about $33k more income/yr if they had. The money all went to the very top instead.
If indeed we ever have a shortage of labor, we could free up 4 or 5 million people who push paper around in the healthcare industry by adopting single payer national health insurance. (Net cost to government probably 0 or less.)
The financial industry is around 15% of GDP now, when stripped of the flimflam, it could be 5%. That would free up a few people. (Didn't Kevin tell us they were all going to be replaced by AI anyway?)
The military doesn't seem to have any real idea how many consultants it employs or what they actually do.
Maybe some of these people could pick tomatoes. Or they could build tomato picking machines.
Every year or two I hear someone on NPR arguing that we have a severe shortage of labor...
That's nice that you enjoy NPR, but I'm not arguing we have a "severe" shortage of labor. Nonetheless we need immigrants. For one thing our public finances are looking increasingly dire because of our declining worker/retiree ratio. Foreigners are begging us to allow them to come to the US and help us pay our bills. We should let more of them do so! And like it or not we're also in a very serious geopolitical competition with a formidable foe across the Pacific. One of our aces in the hole has traditionally been our higher rate of population growth. But that's mostly come to an end (the 2010s saw the US grow the slowest in its history with the exception of the 1930s). We've got plenty of space. We assimilate immigrants well. It's pure win.
"For instance, you can't get on a plane or a train in China without providing proof you're in the country legally, and it doesn't seem to be a very big deal."
Well, if China does it, that means it must be consistent with the values of a free nation to do it as well! It, too, look forward to the days when being assigned a legal status disfavored by the Party means that one can't access travel.
Well, if China does it, that means it must be consistent with the values of a free nation to do it as well! It, too...
I knew someone would chime in with this kind of brain-dead response. I mean, the Nazis were pioneers in the development of modern highways. I guess we'd better not have nice highways, right? LOL. Also, as far as I know being a free nation doesn't equate to being a nation that doesn't bother to enforce its laws.
For the record I wasn't taking the stance that we ought to bar unauthorized immigrants from flying (read my post again!). Rather, I was claiming it need not be impractical or administratively cumbersome. I also seriously doubt China is the only country on earth that uses transportation nodes to enforce immigration laws.
Maybe this is a good idea. Maybe not. But it's certainly do-able, and wouldn't necessarily overburden our airport security personnel.
It is not really about using transportation to enforce immigration laws.
It is about the bizarre idea that we should go out of our way to provide a way for people who are violating our immigration laws to fly. WTF?!?!
In China, you have to scan your ID or passport to get on a train or plane. If it is not in their system or if it is flagged in their system you will not be allowed to board and may be detained.
We could easily do the same thing - the passport of anyone who legally enters the US should be in the DHS's database.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
MF is a troll. Do not feed it.
It is about the bizarre idea that we should go out of our way to provide a way for people who are violating our immigration laws to fly. WTF?!?!
The current status quo doesn't require us to "go out of our way." If you've got proper ID, you can get on a flight in the US whether or not you are lawfully present in the country.
Switching to a system whereby lawful status is checked at transportation nodes likewise wouldn't require us to "go out of our way." Which was my point. (I'm not making the case we ought to do this; TBH I'm ambivalent.)
"I knew someone would chime in with this kind of brain-dead response. I mean, the Nazis were pioneers in the development of modern highways. I guess we'd better not have nice highways, right? LOL. Also, as far as I know being a free nation doesn't equate to being a nation that doesn't bother to enforce its laws."
Two points:
1) I wasn't criticizing China (even implicitly) for its technology, culture, art, etc. I will happily suggest that the US has a lot of things to beneficially learn from China. But what I *am* saying is that the propensity to demand "papers, please" from people (on _trains_ of all things) is not one such thing.
2) It's a hallmark of totalitarian states (of which China is, unfortunately, pretty emblematic) to require people to continually prove that they have a right to be where they are, or to do what they would like to do. There isn't a tradeoff between that and "bother[ing] to enforce ... laws," esp. in a country that holds as foundational the freedom of association and the freedom of travel.
I rather like the situation whereby airport security is focused on airport security, and isn't trying to also enforce immigration law (or tax law, etc.) as a sort of free-ranging organ of government power.
But what I *am* saying is that the propensity to demand "papers, please" from people (on _trains_ of all things) is not one such thing.
There is no "papers, please" demand to board trains or planes in China beyond what is done elsewhere. It's the exact same process as in the US: I haven't boarded a plane this century without being asked to show an ID that is then inspected by security personnel. Have you?
The only difference is that in China (and many other countries), the person or scanner doing the ID inspection checks to see if you are in the country lawfully.
Again, democratic norms don't require us to refrain from enforcing the law. I'm agnostic as to whether or not the adoption of such a practice in the United States would be beneficial (I'm not particularly exercised by undocumented immigration). But I see no reason (or evidence, based on my experience in China) doing so would compromise airport security—Kevin's language (do we really want to start adding other kinds of checks to TSA's remit?) seems to imply he thinks this is a risk. My point was: it's simply not a big deal.
It's stupid. How do people go home when their tourist visa expires?
You are supposed to go home BEFORE it expires.
Once it expires you normally have to go to an immigration or border patrol or national police office, explain why you have overstayed, and possibly pay a fine. Depending on the situation you may be detained or may be required to get on the next plane out or you may get a visa extension of a few days to give you time to put affairs in order and get out of the country.
This is how normal countries handle such situations.
For example, I once accidentally overstayed in HK. I had moved to China but still had my one year HK residence visa in my passport. I came to HK on the last day of my residence visa, was stamped in, and assumed I had 30? 90? days in HK as an American visitor. Nope... I had to be out same day because I was stamped in on my residence visa. I did not know, so I stayed overnight and then showed up at the airport and was stopped because I had overstayed. Once I understood the situation I explained my mistake, immigration waived the normal fine, and I was on my way.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
MF is a troll. Do not feed it.
I don't see that issue being raised. A foreign passport is valid ID, and if you have a ticket home the TSA is not going to prevent you from going home just because your US visa has expired.
If you overstay your visa in the US you can face a reentry ban of up to ten years. So sure, they won't prevent you from returning home, but you may indeed face punishment.
A fair number of citizens don't have drivers licenses either. In Hawaii, my wife had a state issued ID for that specific reason. She didn't learn to drive until after we were married. In a big city with a good transit system (like Boston back in the 70s and well into the late 90s, it was not unusual for people to not need a car (or have a place to park it).
91% of Americans have a driver's license.
And 9% of Americans is a fair number of people.
Indeed. The number of adults without drivers licenses in the US is close to 25 million people--or about the population of a country like Australia or Taiwan.
No likely, since about 72 million Americans are under the age of 17.
That seems unlikely, Newb.
We can't let them get to their court dates for their asylum hearings.
Rep. Malliotakis must not think Trump is going to be President next year. Or perhaps she thinks he is lying about deporting all 11 million illegal immigrants?
"They apparently think that non-citizens with DHS documents shouldn't be allowed to fly on airplanes, full stop. I'm not sure why."
Yeah, it's a real head-scratcher. Unless, you know, cruelty is its own reward.
The arrest warrant part needs more explanation. Are the travelers presenting a copy of the arrest warrants? If so, how did they get them? Warrants are things that police get - there is no reason for either courts or police to give them to accused without actually arresting them.
Does TSA check the names against a list of warrants? How do they know that the person is the one on the list if they have no other ID?
But why should people who are supposed to be arrested - presumably under federal charges - be allowed to gallivant around the country? Of course this is part of Republican's general persecution of (non-white) immigrants, but that doesn't mean this particular complaint isn't justified.
They have a twenty questions system if you don't have ID. It can take an hour to do; I lost my ID coming home from New York (I had pneumonia) once and had to go through it.
This is an excellent point. What exactly is an arrest warrant in this context?
I know why. Isn't it obvious? Republicans aren't that deep (most people aren't, for that matter).
It's a mix of performance and bigotry. Isn't it obvious?
A pretty big swath of the entire Republican political agenda, while camoflaged in some sort of "individual freedom" BS, is actually that if only society were tougher on actions deemed improper then people would stop such improper actions.
Everything from tougher prisons and longer sentences, to making abortion illegal (which increases the penalty on getting pregnant) to treating asylum seekers more inhumanely, I mean, the list is endless.
Its a brain wiring thing. Not very amendable to discussion.
Not sure why?! I'm positive that's rhetorical. Because the answer is that they're assholes.
How many airplanes originating in the U.S. have been hijacked by an illegal alien? The 9/11 terrorists were here legally.
Or anywhere?
Uhh, how would any tourist or worker or guest go *home* when their visa expires if they can't get on an airplane?
1. You are supposed to leave BEFORE your visa expires.
2. In such circumstances you are normally either detained and deported, required to leave immediately on the next available plane, often after paying a fine, or given a few days to get stuff sorted and get out. It depends on length of overstay, your excuse (ie. "I was in the hospital" usually works well), etc.
PSA: MF is a troll. Do not feed it.
I'm not sure why.
It's because wingnuts want to kill them, of course.
If they can't legally kill them outright any sort of trivial injury will help.
It's their rationale for virtually everything they do.
Oh, I get it.
I was going to ask how often this actually happens, then I realized it could only happen when the illegal immigrant is in custody and being accompanied by some law enforcement officer.
Oh, no, literally anyone with an expired visa is technically 'undocumented'.
Just like an expired driver's license, expired visas no longer count. It's also the most common form of immigration.
In case you aren't familiar with greater NYC:
Malliotakis is the MAGA rep for Staten Island and part of southern Brooklyn because just Staten Island isn't enough people. The part of Brooklyn included in her district is where a lot of people (or their parents or grandparents) living in SI came from. The largest neighborhood is Bensonhurst, which was mostly Italian. I live there. It's where Welcome Back Kotter was set and where John Travolta worked in Saturday Night Fever.
In 1989 a black teenager from the another neighborhood was shot to death in Bensonhurst. Yusef Hawkins, his younger brother, and two friends were attacked by a crowd of white youths, many wielding baseball bats. One shot Hawkins twice in the chest, killing him. In 2005, former Gambino crime family member Joseph D'Angelo admitted that the killers were present at his request. A lot of high-profile Mafia figures came from Bensonhurst. Although Bensonhurst is at least half Asian today it is still only 1% Black.
The Verrazzano Narrows bridge that connects SI to Brooklyn opened in 1964, enabling people who worked in Brooklyn to drive there from SI. A lot of NYC cops and firefighters live on Staten Island. It's the only borough that voted for Trump, twice.
TRIGGER ALERT
I've been told that the Verrazano bridge was called the Guinea/Goomba/Guido Gangplank.
It’s a bit silly anyway, since the TSA actually doesn’t require ID to fly.
"do we really want to start adding other kinds of checks to TSA's remit? Felons? Child molesters? Gaza protesters? Communist sympathizers?"
Kevin, stop. STOP! You're giving the MAGAs a painful erection.
+1
This is BRILLIANT!!! The millions upon millions of "illegals" will have to take trains, thus propping up Amtrack. High speed rail will suddenly be financially viable!
+1
"I'm not sure why."
Please.
You know exactly why. You've seen all of the racist vitriol and hatred the right has dumped on immigrants, legal or otherwise, for decades. This is just more of the same.