Have you ever been in an airport, about to head through security screening, and encountered a vicious assault by the FAA employees simply because you were the number they pulled out of their hat that day to practice their idiotic screening policies on?
I'm talking about Grandma with her nylons and tennis shoes who may have knitting needles or worse in her tote bag. Or the baby in the stroller who might have a box cutter in his diaper. We’ve all seen it happen. As a smart man I know (my dad) says, it’s the “Death of Commonsense.” Do these people look like terrorists? (Yes, I understand I’m opening a box for later discussion, but right now I do not want to instigate argument about racial discrimination, so hold that thought.)
So as I get pulled aside because I refuse to take off my shoes (airports are ghastly, who knows what’s on the floor), left my nail file murder weapon in my carry-on, and must have forgotten lip gloss is a liquid and should fit in my 3 oz. clear plastic bag, I sigh and endure a certain level of screening. But we’re letting people WITHOUT a passport travel to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda? What has happened to this, the most basic level of screening, of proof of identity and nationality?
WASHINGTON — The government, hoping to placate angry travelers, on Friday
temporarily waived its new anti-terrorism rules and lifted the requirment that
U.S. passports be used for citizens flying to and from Canada, Mexico, the
Caribbean and Bermuda.
The change should ease a long backlog of
applications, triggered by the new rules, that had disrupted many summer
vacations.
Under the new rules, citizens will be able to fly without
passports to and from those areas through Sept. 30 if they can show a receipt
verifying they have applied, according to U.S. officials.
I understand that most, if not all of those heading to Canada, Mexico and the islands are not associated with terrorist activity, and I certainly am not an advocate for screening them all in the intrusive ways I mention above. However, passports are an institution for international travel –and though you may not cross any sea heading into our neighbors north and south, a passport ensures a certain level of screening that’s already been done. It’s proof of citizenship and birth-certification and all those comforting nationality concerns.
The article states (my response emphasized)
Travelers without passports also would:
- Be required to show another form of government-issued ID, such as a driver's
license. (Since they can’t get one of those without being a
citizen.)- Face more scrutiny, possibly including questioning by border-security
agents. (Oh no, not questioning. Poor Grandma had a wand in her crotch,
but these travelers might be questioned!)- Likely have their bags more thoroughly examined. (Key words: likely,
more thoroughly – all very reassuring.)
The passport rules, which
took effect in January as part of a broad post-9/11 effort to tighten security
along the nation's borders and at airports, have contributed to
longer-than-expected backlogs at State Department processing centers.
BOO HOO. You do realize we are relaxing serious rules about international travel so that the State Department processing centers aren’t so “backed up” ? Keep in mind, these may all be Americans, but they’re not just travelling TO somewhere. They’ll be flying back in. So we’re going to let them in and out without a passport, without proof of citizenship, that if they leave they should be allowed back in as well without a passport proving they reside here. How do I know the same person is coming back in? There's no screening there! But don’t worry, they’ll be questioned and examined and required to show that license! Sorry Grandma, you’ll have to sit over here while I check your bags and fondle your underwire bra, but Ahmed over there who doesn’t have a passport, he’ll see you at the gate.
The new easing of passport restrictions has in no way placated this angry traveler. Can I please keep my shoes on now?
No comments:
Post a Comment