Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
So Trump's day-one/hour-one rhetoric was wrong?
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
So Trump's day-one/hour-one rhetoric was wrong?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Seriously, they've had years to consider this. What's the holdup?
Because it's hard to fix a disaster. Especially when the disaster was pushed for years.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
it's almost like all those times they tried to repeal it and knew it wasn't going to happen
prove it was all political theatre and was just a waste of time and money
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Well, gosh, if it's such a disaster, it seems like getting rid of it immediately would do nothing but help he American people. Why hasn't that happened?
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
Customs Agents Checked IDs Of Domestic Flight Passengers At JFK
Customs and Border Protection agents met a domestic flight at John F. Kennedy Airport on Wednesday night and checked the IDs of every passenger on board, according to one traveler who documented the scene.
The incident, which took place on Delta Flight 1583 from San Francisco, was atypical for both domestic flights—on which no identification is needed to exit the airport—and international flights, where identification is checked during a customs screening after deplaning.
A spokesman for CBP told Gothamist that such checks are "not a new policy" and that it is "not unusual for us to assist our fellow law-enforcement agencies."
CBP declined to comment on which agency it was working with on Wednesday, but said collaborative agencies might include Homeland Security, or any local or national law enforcement agency. The spokesman also said that CBP was seeking an individual, who, it turned out, was not on the flight. [CBP has since stated that the agents were assisting ICE in seeking a person with a removal order. See below for update.]
Matt O'Rouke of Manhattan, 41, photographed two agents standing on either side of the plane entrance shortly after 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday, checking identification. He described the experience to Gothamist.
"When we were getting out there were two customs agents," he recalled. "I don't think they had a clipboard or a list. I think they were just looking at everybody's ID.
They did it really carefully. You could tell they weren't just looking for a name. They read my entire ID and looked at me the entire time. I was probably the tenth person off the plane, and they did the same for everyone in front of me."
When the plane landed, O'Rouke said, a flight attendant announced over the intercom that all passengers should take out their identification.
"The head flight attendant came on and said, 'Please have your papers ready' three or four times," O'Rouke recalled. Passengers then asked why papers were necessary on a domestic flight. "Someone corrected her and she said, 'Oh I mean photo IDs,'" he added. "To which people were kind of weirded out."
"I flew almost 200,000 miles last year," O'Rouke said. "I've never had my ID checked getting off a domestic flight."
Earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines for CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to implement President Donald Trump's immigration policy. The guidelines basically eliminate the concept of deportation priorities, leaving it up to ICE offices to decide who among the millions in the United States without a visa to go after.
Jordan Wells, a staff attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union, told Gothamist that this sort of behavior is not necessarily indicative of immigration enforcement. Border agents have been known to check IDs if they have reason to believe someone on the flight is on the FBI's wanted list, for example.
But CBP's comment on the matter, he said, was not specific enough to determine whether Wednesday's searches were indeed typical, as the agency maintains.
"CBP does not have carte blanche to detain people for questioning without suspicion just because they step off of a domestic flight within 100 miles of a border," he said.
"It is not an always-and-everywhere police force, and any attempt to expand its operations beyond its authority would raise serious concerns."
Ward Oliver, supervising attorney for the Immigration Law Unit at the Legal Aid Society, stressed that the incident seemed highly unusual, and consistent with the regime laid out in the new DHS memos.
"I can't say that I've ever heard of this happening at Kennedy Airport before," he said. "To me it seems pretty clear to me what they are doing, in light of the order."
He added that there has historically been legal precedent for agents to question individuals at checkpoints within 100 miles of the US border. JFK is within that 100 mile zone, "But it seems like an abuse [of that right] of it's in the airport on a domestic flight."
Port Authority spokesman Scott Ladd deferred comment to Delta and CBP, saying, "This isn't our area or jurisdiction."
Delta spokeswoman Elizabeth Wolf did not immediately comment on the incident.
Customs and Border Protection agents met a domestic flight at John F. Kennedy Airport on Wednesday night and checked the IDs of every passenger on board, according to one traveler who documented the scene.
The incident, which took place on Delta Flight 1583 from San Francisco, was atypical for both domestic flights—on which no identification is needed to exit the airport—and international flights, where identification is checked during a customs screening after deplaning.
A spokesman for CBP told Gothamist that such checks are "not a new policy" and that it is "not unusual for us to assist our fellow law-enforcement agencies."
CBP declined to comment on which agency it was working with on Wednesday, but said collaborative agencies might include Homeland Security, or any local or national law enforcement agency. The spokesman also said that CBP was seeking an individual, who, it turned out, was not on the flight. [CBP has since stated that the agents were assisting ICE in seeking a person with a removal order. See below for update.]
Matt O'Rouke of Manhattan, 41, photographed two agents standing on either side of the plane entrance shortly after 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday, checking identification. He described the experience to Gothamist.
"When we were getting out there were two customs agents," he recalled. "I don't think they had a clipboard or a list. I think they were just looking at everybody's ID.
They did it really carefully. You could tell they weren't just looking for a name. They read my entire ID and looked at me the entire time. I was probably the tenth person off the plane, and they did the same for everyone in front of me."
When the plane landed, O'Rouke said, a flight attendant announced over the intercom that all passengers should take out their identification.
"The head flight attendant came on and said, 'Please have your papers ready' three or four times," O'Rouke recalled. Passengers then asked why papers were necessary on a domestic flight. "Someone corrected her and she said, 'Oh I mean photo IDs,'" he added. "To which people were kind of weirded out."
"I flew almost 200,000 miles last year," O'Rouke said. "I've never had my ID checked getting off a domestic flight."
Earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines for CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to implement President Donald Trump's immigration policy. The guidelines basically eliminate the concept of deportation priorities, leaving it up to ICE offices to decide who among the millions in the United States without a visa to go after.
Jordan Wells, a staff attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union, told Gothamist that this sort of behavior is not necessarily indicative of immigration enforcement. Border agents have been known to check IDs if they have reason to believe someone on the flight is on the FBI's wanted list, for example.
But CBP's comment on the matter, he said, was not specific enough to determine whether Wednesday's searches were indeed typical, as the agency maintains.
"CBP does not have carte blanche to detain people for questioning without suspicion just because they step off of a domestic flight within 100 miles of a border," he said.
"It is not an always-and-everywhere police force, and any attempt to expand its operations beyond its authority would raise serious concerns."
Ward Oliver, supervising attorney for the Immigration Law Unit at the Legal Aid Society, stressed that the incident seemed highly unusual, and consistent with the regime laid out in the new DHS memos.
"I can't say that I've ever heard of this happening at Kennedy Airport before," he said. "To me it seems pretty clear to me what they are doing, in light of the order."
He added that there has historically been legal precedent for agents to question individuals at checkpoints within 100 miles of the US border. JFK is within that 100 mile zone, "But it seems like an abuse [of that right] of it's in the airport on a domestic flight."
Port Authority spokesman Scott Ladd deferred comment to Delta and CBP, saying, "This isn't our area or jurisdiction."
Delta spokeswoman Elizabeth Wolf did not immediately comment on the incident.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
57Brave
Well-known member
Matt ViserVerified account
@mviser
Spicer on claim raids were a “military action”: “The president is using that as an adjective...It’s happening in a high degree of precision"
...................
LOLGOP@LOLGOP 7m7 minutes ago
LOLGOP Retweeted Matt Viser
Why did he use the wrong word, which would suggest illegal U.S. military action in America? To illustrate precision, of course.
With all due respect sir I answered this question.
57Brave
Well-known member
but the emails
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
So which one of the posited replacement plans is going to address those issues of coverage and affordability? Surely there's an answer to this, right? Have there not been years to sort this out?
sturg33
I
I don't understand why there is a need for a "replacement"
What was there before it? Have things gotten worse? Yes.
When there is a fire, you extinguish it.. you don't then replace it with a new fire
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
So you'd be in favor of accelerating costs and less widespread coverage. OK. So your solution is repeal w/ no replacement?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Higher costs + more coverage < even higher costs and less coverage. Got it.
If that's where you want to be, go ahead, I guess . . . but it seems like people are pretty hesitant to actually blow up the least bad solution for the most people (i.e. the ACA).
If, as sturg says, there's no need for a replacement, I wonder why the majority party hasn't just repealed the ACA already. Anyone?
sturg33
I
Why would we have higher costs? When you remove the mandate and pre-existing conditions, cost will come down.
If repealing means higher costs, then why have costs gone up so much since it was put in place?
Not following your logic
sturg33
I
Sure - if you want to look at something completely in a vacuum devoid of all context, then you're right! But when we do that, we get things like "women make 77% of what men make" type of arguments, which as you know is devoid of all logic and reason
Afterall, we could always nuke a city, pay to re-build, and then brag about all the extra jobs we created
sturg33
I
Because it's bad politics.
When you have the inept Bernie Sanders screaming that Republicans want to kick millions off health care, it's a bad look.
Just like with social security, it's bad politics... but it's not bad math
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Since the increase in premiums during the ACA years have been less than the increase in premiums immediately-pre-ACA, I'm pretty comfortable with that. You disagree?
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
It was all grandstanding and political posturing. They obviously never thought they'd actually be in position to "repeal&replace", and now they're caught scrambling, junk-in-mitts.