Slashdot Mirror

Maybe they saw what a failure the fence was an decided that something different was needed.

The fencing that is there is a success. CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) confirms 90% of their apprehension are in areas that are not covered by fencing as it stands. From their findings following the initial 2006 Secure Fencing Act :

https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/...

For example, Vitiello stated that in 2005 Yuma Sector was âoeinundated with illegal cross-border incursions.â There were 138,549 illegal alien apprehensions, according to a CBP case study.

From 2006â"2007, after adding 29 miles of primary pedestrian wall, 9.1 miles of lighting, 9 miles of all-weather roads, a bridge along the border, and 603 agents, Yuma Sector experienced an 82 percent decrease in illegal entries. In addition, Yuma saw a 95 percent decrease in agent assaults from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2015, the study reports.

The 700 miles built of fencing simply isn't enough. Walls are effective, every country who has implemented a type of border barrier has seen dramatic drops in border crossings. To deny that is to deny reality.

But no, tell us how this is not simply democrats not wanting Trump to get credit for something they themselves have failed to fully implement. They don't want the "Trump Wall", but let's be clear : Democrats are for a wall, because it WORKS. They just want it to be a DEMOCRAT Wall.

I heard that 90% and laughed... no shit, if you have a partial barrier, people will go around it, that stat means absolutely nothing by itself. You could plant a wall of cactus and poison oak along half our border and 90% of the people caught crossing would be caught crossing the non-cactused parts.

Im tired of people defending the president by correcting him, I’ll buy that fence/wall/surveillance could all mean the same thing but when the man comes out and says no a physical wall then that is what he means. I know he has recently said he’d be ok with a fence, but it does no good for other people to say he really meant fence while he is saying no he means wall.

Or, when you say border security is about preventing border crossings, I’ll buy that, that your president just said it’s to stop crimes and deaths. I’m sick and tired of his defenders watering down things the president actually SAYS. Repeatedly!

Expanding the existing border barriers should be bog standard normal request for funding from the DHS, and it would probably pass. You pretending that’s what this is doesn’t change reality. This “wall” is being sold as the answer to an “emergency” to prevent crimes and deaths and drugs, and that is BULLSHIT, it’s political, and the dems didn’t make it that way. It’s a lot of god damned money is what it is, and the DHS should keep asking and keep getting it over time, it’s just not a fucking stop what we’re doing and open the wallet to stop the emergency right now, that’s fucking fake.

Maybe they saw what a failure the fence was an decided that something different was needed.

The fencing that is there is a success. CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) confirms 90% of their apprehension are in areas that are not covered by fencing as it stands. From their findings following the initial 2006 Secure Fencing Act :

https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/...

For example, Vitiello stated that in 2005 Yuma Sector was âoeinundated with illegal cross-border incursions.â There were 138,549 illegal alien apprehensions, according to a CBP case study.

From 2006â"2007, after adding 29 miles of primary pedestrian wall, 9.1 miles of lighting, 9 miles of all-weather roads, a bridge along the border, and 603 agents, Yuma Sector experienced an 82 percent decrease in illegal entries. In addition, Yuma saw a 95 percent decrease in agent assaults from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2015, the study reports.

The 700 miles built of fencing simply isn't enough. Walls are effective, every country who has implemented a type of border barrier has seen dramatic drops in border crossings. To deny that is to deny reality.

But no, tell us how this is not simply democrats not wanting Trump to get credit for something they themselves have failed to fully implement. They don't want the "Trump Wall", but let's be clear : Democrats are for a wall, because it WORKS. They just want it to be a DEMOCRAT Wall.

About 24,000 criminals caught entering the US. That's quite a few - and about a 10% recidivism rate a well... Most are those are outside the official ports of entry - about 500,000 arrests in FY2018 outside the ports of entry. And at least 15 terrorists have crossed the SW border.

But let me ask you - do you lock your doors and windows when you leave? If not - do you advertise that you leave your doors and windows unlocked?

About 24,000 criminals caught entering the US. That's quite a few - and about a 10% recidivism rate a well... Most are those are outside the official ports of entry - about 500,000 arrests in FY2018 outside the ports of entry. And at least 15 terrorists have crossed the SW border.

But let me ask you - do you lock your doors and windows when you leave? If not - do you advertise that you leave your doors and windows unlocked?

Data on electronic devices can show a persons support of and funding for a banned group. That they travelled to a nation to support and funded a banned group. Photographs, faith based and political support for groups of interest to the USA. Funds for and meetings with people and groups of interest to the USA. GPS, images that show the device owner when questioned was in a nation they failed to mention when asked about.

While these are within the scope of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) search, all of the above are outside the allowed activities of the TSA.

The article states " This lawsuit comes after a number of reports came in pertaining to the searches of electronic devices of passengers traveling domestically.... TSA does, however, have public policies pertaining to the search and seizure of electronic devices at the border and during international trips."

The complaint seems to conflate TSA and CBP searches, and alleges TSA is searching the contents of electronic devices held by domestic travelers flying through SFO, but provides no evidence to support this claim.

Section 5.3.4 basically says they can do a full image of your phone without any standard of suspicion and no due process.

N.B. WTF is it with the PDF of the new directive not containing selectable/searchable text? Its fucking 2018 and they can't even get that right? It's almost like they want to make it as hard as possible for citizens to read the new regulations.

> If you want change you have to *Sweep the House*.

Of the remaining Democrats? That doesn't seem all that wise, but I understand how you could want to vote out all Democrats, given that they controlled the House, the Senate, and the Executive back in 2009, when the overbearing linked rules were put in place:
https://foiarr.cbp.gov/streami...

The current rules, put in place with a Republican House, Senate, and Executive Branch, are far better than the 2009 rules, as they prevent the search of cloud data, and establish standards for when an "advanced" search can be used.

Unless you mean to elect all Libertarians and Green party members, who will get rid of this routine and disgusting violation of the 4th amendment, I can't imagine why sweeping the house of its remaining Democrats will result in further privacy- the Republicans are apparently better at this than Democrats, but both fall far short of respecting our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

This made me curious about how they tell that visa holders actually leave the country, and I ended up on this page: https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/i-94-instructions.

Seems like they could spend a lot less than a billion dollars and just provide a document scanner to the person who looks at your photo id and boarding pass on the way in to airport security. The scanner could do OCR on the ID, confirm the validity of the boarding pass, and prompt the TSA employee to request a passport for scanning where that's appropriate (foreign nationals departing the country (who didn't already supply their passport as ID) and US citizens departing to a country that requires a passport for entry).

Winning the primary, then Whitehouse against what would otherwise be called a "shoe in" candidate.

Winning the primary/election was certainly unexpected and therefore an accomplishment. But squeaking out an electoral win against a candidate who had become unpopular even with voters traditionally loyal her own party isn't terribly impressive. Also, the *only* reason she was considered a "shoo-in" was *because* she was running against Donald Trump. His biggest accomplishment in that area has been having people underestimate just how far he's willing to go to get things he wants.

The economy, kinda

Wait, what? I... what??? I honestly have no clue what you're even referring to. What's changed about the economy in the last year that wasn't already on that path?

but more concrete would be supreme court appointment

If you can't fill a vacant post on the supreme court with a your party being the majority in both the House and the Senate you're doing something seriously wrong.

and reduced immigration.

The thing that's been going down for 17 years? Apprehensions went down by 167,000 from 2008 to 2009 source. Some years they go up, some they go down, but on the whole, they've been decreasing since 2000. Other than rhetoric, what policy has the Trump administration put in place that is actually curbing illegal immigration? Or did you mean legal? Because yeah, he's definitely been trying to reduce that, though not very successfully there either.

More fun has been his work against the media

Well, the media *he* doesn't like at least... He's not working against any media outlets willing to fawn over him. Of course, those aren't "fake news."

and in working towards replacing ACA

His own party rejecting his suggestions (or demands, depending on how you want to view it) is an accomplishment? ACA was going to need to have changes no matter what. Anyone who tells you it was exactly what anyone wanted and was expected to remain the same is insane, lying, or both.

prior to Trump ACA was seen as Obama's signature legislation

By Fox News... Do you honestly think liberals or Democrats went around calling the bill Obamacare??? When I think of Obama-era legislation I equate ACA equally with DACA and the Dodd-Frank Act. It was Republican fixation on the bill that made it forever linked to him in the public psyche, not him championing it as his crowning achievement.

put aside your bias for a bit and you'll start to see it too.

Better words were never said.

TSA Pre only is $85 / 5 years.

But wait, that's not all !

For just $15 more you can upgrade to "Global Entry" - which allows you to skip the immigration/passport check line when coming to US and exit the airport through a separate, shorter, customs control line.
Global Entry also includes:
- TSA Pre
- SENTRI (Mexico land border expedited entry)
- NEXUS (Canada land border expedited entry)

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/tru...

Worth every penny if you need to fly in and out of the US.

How exactly would they move customs inspection from an airport firmly inside the U.S. to a spot outside of the U.S. without moving the entire airport?

Some locations in other countries already have customs prelcearance facilities.

You certainly can't trust that article in the NYT. Note that they make incorrect and unsupported claims about what questions were asked, then direct quotes which they say were answers. If one listens to the exchange verbatim, it's clear that Trump was talking about databases to track immigrants. He was not "asked how a system of registering Muslims would be carried out" as claimed, that was manufactured by the NYT. In context it's clear he wasn't focusing his answers on Muslims, but on immigrants - he specifically mentioned the wall he wants to build along the Mexican border, and not even the alt-left has tried to claim he wants that to keep Muslims out.

Nothing he said implied that he supported creating a database specific to Muslims. He was talking about expanding and better managing long existing systems which track people entering/exiting the US. Yes, because some immigrants are Muslim, they should be in the database (same as others). But, because he refused to say that he wouldn't track Muslims, the alt-left fake news says he wants a "Muslim database", says Muslims would be in it based solely on their religion, and implies it would include US citizens.

I get how people can misunderstand things he says - he's not well read, not very articulate, and doesn't have a career politician's ingrained care with words. It gets him in trouble, but it doesn't make him evil.

I would argue there should be no visa waiver countries in the first place. We really ought to require everyone entering the USA notify the state department a head of time.

I'll excuse your ignorance (you seem to be from the USA after all). As a visitor with a visa waiver passport, I had to register my details ahead of visiting your charming country (see e.g. https://www.cbp.gov/travel/int...). I still need to whip out my passport each time I enter, and can be denied entry. About the only benefit to this is not having to fork over the dollars for the visa, and a quicker line through customs, as much of the process is automated.

Please also rest assured that my country and around 3 dozen others also extend the same courtesy to the magnificent citizens of your state - and not even Americans disagree on how kooky some of their fellow countrymen* can be, right up to presidential candidate level.

(* = where "men" refers to persons of all possible genders and sexes).

Easier answer, stay out of the USA.

Since I'm a US Citizen that might be a tad problematic.

Kiosks for passport control? Never wait? This has never been a problem for me...

That is not the standard experience. I've traveled out of the US a fair bit. About 20-30% of the time the wait has been minimal. The rest of the time the wait has been at least 30 minutes and I've had waits as long as 90 minutes. Curiously the US is generally the more hostile (for lack of a better word) to people entering the country than most of the countries I've been to and I've been to places like Vietnam and China which are not exactly bastions of democracy.

Never heard of Global Entry or PreCheck.

If you haven't heard of TSA Pre then you haven't traveled in a US airport in the last several years. It's pretty hard to miss the signs. Global Entry is a bit less well known but is available to US Citizens plus a few other countries.

If you travel overseas, go for Global Entry. It costs the same ($100), and it includes PreCheck as a perk. As an added bonus, you get to use kiosks for passport control (never a wait) and the crew line for customs.

I routinely take 8-10 minutes total from deplaning at LAX (Bradley Terminal) to the terminal exit. A bit longer if I have to wait for checked luggage. Worth every cent.

Global Entry is definitely the way to go if you travel internationally. Flying into ATL or JFK is no longer a hassle at customs and immigration. At YVR when a cruise ship is dumping their passengers in the line is no big deal as well. GE is now $200, but many credit cards will refund the fee; even so I'd gladly pay the $200 to avoid a hour or more wait to get back in after a 10 plus hour flight. Pre-check is an added bonus, and I'm glad they are limiting the non - Preorder GE folks from using Pre. Nothing is more annoying to be in line behind someone who doesn't understand they don't need to disrobe and empty their luggage and hold up the line because they are clueless.; and then look all pissed because you toss your bag on the belt ahead of theirs and go through the metal detector.

GE also is expanding to some overseas airports as well for an extra fee. The U.K. Is one destination that would be worth the fee.

No, no it's not. Quit spreading FUD and talking out your ass

"A $100 one-time fee is required with your Global Entry application and must be paid at time of application submission" http://www.cbp.gov/travel/trus...

Amish people can travel between Canada, US, and Mexico without a passport for exactly this reason. https://help.cbp.gov/app/answe.... Accommodations are available for sincere beliefs. It's not available to pranksters.

It is a lot broader than that. The Houston Chronicle has a decent article summarizing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs).

Then there is that question about taking more than $10,000 in cash out of the country when traveling.

And, of course, seizures of suspicious amounts of cash when stopped by a law enforcement officer anywhere for anything.

(Suspicious being anything the local LEO decides it is. How fucked up is that?)

It is a lot broader than that. The Houston Chronicle has a decent article summarizing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs).

Then there is that question about taking more than $10,000 in cash out of the country when traveling.

And, of course, seizures of suspicious amounts of cash when stopped by a law enforcement officer anywhere for anything.

(Suspicious being anything the local LEO decides it is. How fucked up is that?)

They don't need a reason to do a search or give extra scrutiny at a border crossing. Furthermore, carrying more than $10,000 in cash across the border without reporting it is illegal.

And why isn't the US using this on our southern border?

Because Predator Drones, that's why.

Don't forget to integrate a marine radar and optical/infrared sensor ball into your Cessna.

Don't be a pedant. "Import to" or "import into" is a valid linguistic phrase:
http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/import
http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/newsroom/publications/trade/iius.ctt/iius.pdf
http://www.bund.de/EN/Economy-And-Trade/Importing-to-Germany/Importing-to-Germany_node.html

Although I will admit that I would have used "export" if I had been thinking about it properly.

There were 11 neys and 2 kawalas which were made of bamboo. Bamboo can't be imported into the USA unless it has been fumigated by a certain process (T404-d) to kill the Khapra beetle (cabinet beetle) upon arrival at the port of entry.

This beetle has been found 100 times in imports in 2011 compared to three to six times a decade ago:

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1359/~/importing-bamboo-into-the-us

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khapra_beetle

I would think "manufactured products made of bamboo" would be an even more appropriate fit. I don't know of any breeds that naturally grow their own carved finger-holes and mouth-pieces.

And if we follow the actual APHIS manual cited and linked by that CBP webpage, it turns out the CBP webpage incorrectly cites Table 3-22, which applies to broomcorn and broomstraw, rather than Table 3-57, which applies to bamboo.

As I commented in another post, sufficiently advanced incompetence can be indistinguishable from malice in its consequence to the victim. It's not like customs hasn't screwed up like this before.

Apparently no-one even read the title, and immediately jumped to the assumption that TSA is at fault. TSA doesn't inspect inbound international luggage, that's the job of Customs, Border Patrol (CBP). Customs has very clear restrictions on bring in plants, timbers, etc and obviously they felt the raw flute making materials qualified under those restrictions.

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/kbyg/prohibited_restricted.xml#PlantsandSeeds
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/permits/index.shtml
http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/agriculture/olympic_ag.ctt/olympic_ag.pdf

Had he known about the restrictions and he declared them, it wouldn't have been an issue.

Apparently no-one even read the title, and immediately jumped to the assumption that TSA is at fault. TSA doesn't inspect inbound international luggage, that's the job of Customs, Border Patrol (CBP). Customs has very clear restrictions on bring in plants, timbers, etc and obviously they felt the raw flute making materials qualified under those restrictions.

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/kbyg/prohibited_restricted.xml#PlantsandSeeds
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/permits/index.shtml
http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/agriculture/olympic_ag.ctt/olympic_ag.pdf

Had he known about the restrictions and he declared them, it wouldn't have been an issue.

An important sentence was left out of the summary, which explained that customs mistook the instruments for pieces of bamboo.

Actually, US Customs does allow bamboo to be imported, per this page: Importing Bamboo into the US It says:

Is bamboo allowed to be imported to the US?

In general, bamboo that is not thoroughly dried and is therefore still capable of propagation is prohibited entry into the United States.

Bamboo that is thoroughly dried and split or cut lengthwise (rendering it incapable of propagation) will be inspected upon entry and released.

Unsplit dried bamboo canes/stakes/poles also are allowed entry into the United States after inspection: however, if the bamboo canes/stakes/poles are intended for garden or nursery use, the shipment must be fumigated (T404-d treatment extended to 24 hours) upon arrival at the U.S. port of entry.

Bamboo furniture, bamboo cloth, and other manufactured products made of bamboo do not require fumigation and will be released upon inspection.

For more information on Bamboo products, see Table 3-22 in the APHIS Miscellaneous and Processed Products Manual.

If you have further questions regarding requirements for importing agricultural products, please contact the USDA/APHIS Customer Support Center at (301) 851-2046.

His flutes should have been allowed as "unsplit dried bamboo canes".

It IS illegal to *IMPORT* a phone whose importation is banned, but it is NOT illegal to come into the country having bought one.

Lmao -- Try again idiot; bringing ANYTHING into the Country that you acquired outside of it, is, BY DEFINITION, importation. Period. Full-Stop.

But, by way of trying to bring some enlightenment into your darkend headspace, here's another example that more closely parallels your idiotic comment:

You can legally possess grapefruits, pomegranates and oranges in the US, but TRY bringing some in through Customs from a foreign country, and they'll happily relieve you of your fruit. Why? because importation of citrus products (like these cell phones) is also illegal! (though, for a different reason) -- Importation Advisory: Citrus Fruit May Not Be Brought Into the United States

Welcome to the rodeo goofball...

-AC

The submitter said they were ripped for "digital media devices," which I took to mean not that s/he has a bunch of extra physical copies of the DVDs (why would you anyway?? If you already bought a legal copy, why double the physical space it takes up?), but, rather, that there are multiple digital copies on computers, tablets, etc. Anyone lugging "half a suitcase" of just about ANY one valuable thing should be prepared to be randomly screened and asked about it.

I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to with your reference to homeland security having a "copyright role." Here's the closest I could find linked from DHS's website.

Do you think I'd have trouble getting through a US airport with a couple of hundred DVDs with the names of TV shows scrawled on them in permanent pen?

I honestly couldn't say. You should probably be prepared to explain, I guess, if you wind up being randomly searched and they find them. But my more pressing question would be why the hell you would even bother with that many physical copies, and why you'd have them all on your person rather than putting them in a box with the rest of the stuff you're having shipped for your move.

Costal Craft builds high tech - high performance - luxury yachts designed for the Pacific Northwest. 48' Coastal Craft 420 IPS

The 48' Coastal Craft 450 IPS lists for $1.2 million.

From U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Importing a boat for personal use into the U.S.Importing a boat for personal use into the U.S.

Rates of Duty: Pleasure boats are generally dutiable when imported into the United States. The following duty rates apply to boats imported for recreational purposes:

-Sailboats and motorboats other than outboard motorboats: 1.5 percent

TechCrunch Guy could easily owe the government $10-$20K in import duties and on up from there.

He needs to show proof of ownership, such as a bill of sale.

Proof that the boat conforms with EPA regulations (Engine Declaration Form).

The documentation on a boat in this class has to be tight.

Welcome to the real world, where border guards carry guns and water is wet.

oh, if true that makes us feel much better and is a much smaller area. NOPE! http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/contacts/ports/

Please. They've been doing this forever: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/February/other/christmas.xml

Don't forget that Customs and Border Patrol also has drone bases in Grand Forks ND, Washington DC, Oklahoma City OK, Riverside CA, Bellingham WA and Plattsburgh NY. Those mostly aren't listed in TFA.
Source: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/am/about_oam/oam_history.xml

The second problem is that CBP is conducting the checkpoints, and there's a very real question as to whether they're overstepping their authority by conducting checkpoints well inside the border. From CBP's own website: "A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officerâ(TM)s border search authority is derived from federal statutes and regulations, including 19 C.F.R. 162.6, which states that, 'All persons, baggage and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof are liable to inspection by a CBP officer.'" http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/admissibility/authority_to_search.xml By definition, something that is outside of the customs area is already inside the U.S., not "arriving in the U.S." It's admittedly a grey area, because CBP clearly needs the authority to pursue people who cross illegally, but they shouldn't be infringing on the rights of citizens in the process.

So persons entering the US by plane can only be searched by CBP while they're still in the air? AWESOME! I always suspected those customs checkpoints located in US airports were illegal.

No, it's not the fact that dogs hit on the vehicle, but that the vehicle was stopped in the first place. The GP said probable cause, but that's the wrong label -- the justification for stopping someone is called "reasonable suspicion." The Supreme Court even admitted that checkpoints were unconstitutional when they narrowly found that their unconstitutionality was outweighed by the interest of public safety. I believe this ruling was wrong, and that responsible citizens should be pushing for laws that clearly define random checkpoints as illegal fishing expeditions (as has been done in several states), but that's how things stand right now at the federal level.

The second problem is that CBP is conducting the checkpoints, and there's a very real question as to whether they're overstepping their authority by conducting checkpoints well inside the border. From CBP's own website: "A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officerâ(TM)s border search authority is derived from federal statutes and regulations, including 19 C.F.R. 162.6, which states that, 'All persons, baggage and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof are liable to inspection by a CBP officer.'" http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/admissibility/authority_to_search.xml By definition, something that is outside of the customs area is already inside the U.S., not "arriving in the U.S." It's admittedly a grey area, because CBP clearly needs the authority to pursue people who cross illegally, but they shouldn't be infringing on the rights of citizens in the process.

Others have already responded to your idiocy, I'll just add this: cops are in the poor neighborhoods so they can deal with the problems there instead of waiting for them to go to the rich neighborhoods.

So? Are you suggesting that the cops are there to only serve the rich? Are you suggesting that without the rich neighborhoods there would be no police? Strange then that communities like East Lansing Michigan have a police department, yet no million dollar homes. The same could be said of Lansing Michigan, Grand Rapids Michigan, Gary Indiana, San Marcos Texas, Houma Louisiana, and many many other communities around the country.

Yachts aren't "brought" to the US, and don't pay duties. Apparently, you're too stupid to notice that these boats don't fly American flags.

They don't? U.S. Customs and Border Protection would disagree:

Cruising licenses exempt pleasure boats of certain countries from having to undergo formal entry and clearance procedures and can be obtained from the CBP Port Direct at the first port of arrival in the United States. U.S. pleasure craft and foreign-flag vessels without a cruising license, which are 30 feet or longer in length, must pay an annual fee of $27.50 for the user fee decal. User Fee Decals may be purchased online through the CBP Web site.

You're the one batting a perfect zero here.

You brought up two points. Both of which were proved to be wrong. You also completely ignored my points on education, public spaces, public services such as Medicaid, the fact that military spending is enjoyed equally by all, private security and the fact that the top 5% pay over 50% of the taxes and the bottom 50% of the population pays NOTHING in taxes. That means that the bottom 50% gets ALL of these services without paying one cent and the wealthy that pay for them don't use them.

Sorry, but math disagrees with you. Numbers don't lie. So, please don't try that line of bullshit that the wealthy receive more government services, dollar for dollar than the poor. That a hard pill to swallow when you consider that the poor don't pay anything at all for them. The really sad part is that you will continue to believe, even when it's been proved wrong several times over.

What does plain view have to do with anything? Where's there a law against transporting large amounts of cash? As long as it's your money, it's completely legal. But in reality, if you're caught with it, they'll say it's "drug money" and seize it, even though there was no crime committed.

There are some restrictions on transporting large amounts of cash in some cases. Currency reporting flyer specifically references PL 97-258, 31 U.S.C. 5311, et seq. You are allowed to carry any amount of cash, but you have to report that you're carrying it if travelling out of the country.

It is perfectly within a TSA agents job and rights that if they find someone transporting something that could be reasonably believed to be at least $10,000 to question the passenger at the very least if they are travelling internationally, and if they have documented the transport of the cash.

Just like anything else, if you're going to be doing something unusual, then it pays to plan ahead and get things cleared prior to you ever showing up at the airport.

anyone with even the most remote fucking grasp of physics and flight should be comfortable debunking his claims as a complete lie.

From your comments below, I take it you aren't one of those people. Here goes:

most commercial helicopters stall out at anything greater than 8000ft; most of the ones flying around my city stick to around 600-800 ft ceilings..

Those two statements have little, if anything, to do with each other. Helicopters generally stick to low (sub 1,000 ft) altitudes for a couple of reasons -- namely, there's usually little reason to fly higher since it takes more fuel to climb and the jobs for which they are often used tend to require low altitude flight -- not because they are incapable of flying higher. Also, the ceiling for a helicopter is dependent upon its forward velocity through the air. The faster the helicopter flies -- to a point -- the more lift the rotor blades create, and therefore, the higher it can fly, so be careful not to confuse the hovering ceiling with the service ceiling in cruise flight. They are not the same thing.

The CH-47 Chinook twin rotor helicopter is used by the USAF to rescue climbers on Mount Denali (McKinley) in AK.

Uhhh...no, it's not. The Air National Guard based at Kulis in Anchorage flies Sikorsky Pavehawks (militarized S-70s) and the Army at Ft. Rich flies the Blackhawk -- basically the same airframe as the Pavehawk, but outfitted differently. In Talkeetna, AK (where most climbers fly out of to reach Denali), there is a highly modified helicopter nicknamed the "Denali Lama". IIRC, it's an Aerospatiale -- but it's definitely NOT a CH-47. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone regularly flying a CH-47 in Alaska; at least I don't see them in Anchorage very often.

the highest altitude helicopter currently in existence is the AS350. A pilot named Didier Delsalle of France landed it on the summit of Mount Everest (8,850 meters) in 2005...and the record is entirely speculative/disputed.

...which is 29,035 feet -- three times the altitude this guy claims for his hover bike. While it may be a disputed record, there are plenty of verified accounts of helicopters landing and taking off well above 10,000 feet in mountain rescues (including Air Force Rescue 470, in which my brother-in-law was the PIC and for which, he won the MacKay Trophy).

finally, A blackhawk military helicopter with a 1700 horsepower engine still only goes ~190 kias.

And your point is? A Cessna 206 does 140 knots (the article doesn't say on what engine, but 206s typically have either a Continental O-470 at ~235 h.p. or a Lycoming O-520 at ~300 h.p.), but the amateur-built AR-5 will do 180 kts on 65 h.p. Let's see...the AR-5 has 1/5 the power and roughly 1.5 times the speed. Clearly you can't correlate h.p. to max speed on different airframes. In fact, there's a lot that determines how fast a given amount of power will propel an aircraft, for example, the drag from the rotor disk and how much of that engine power goes into lifting the aircraft. Your 1700 h.p. Blackhawk has a max take-off weight of 23,500 pounds, giving a power to weight ratio of 0.07 hp/pound. Since the designer of the hover bike is shooting to classify this aircraft as an ultralight in the U.S., that means he's limited to an empty weight of 254 pounds.

It seems like a more useful question would be, does the Border Patrol consider Chicago to be on the border. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/contacts/ports/il/3901.xml seems to say that they do. And unless they're going to start performing shipping inspections out on the water, that's unlikely to change.

Services would be taxed. Real estate (and property transactions) are already taxed by local governments.

If people aren't spending, then the money's in the bank or invested, both increasing productivity and jobs.

Imports are already subject to sales taxes, and the US isn't being blackballed by the WTO. They just have to be the same as domestic sales taxes.

I can't say anything about those between poverty and middle class because I haven't seen any numbers (have you?).

The summary makes it sound like nobody is using iris scanning technology now, but Homeland Security has been using it for the NEXUS program (to cross between Canada/US without talking to anyone) for years. I've been looking into a machine's "eyes" for a couple years now, and it's been really reliable from my point of view. It looks like what is actually new is that this system can pick up irises from a few feet away, instead of 8-12 inches.

Nobody, because TSA doesn't determine whether or not you can enter the country. Perhaps you've confused them with CBP?

I've sent a reasonable number of things from and to a variety of countries, and everything I've ever sent or received internationally has been required to carry a declaration of contents and value on the outside, regardless of the country of origin or destination.

Usually customs will accept this at face value, but they do have the right to open packages to check that false declarations are not being made. Their website has a little more detail, if you're interested. For comparison, US customs have very similar rights and procedures, as listed here.

In reality, it's not unusual for parcels to carry a false statement of value if, for example, you order something from Hong Kong on eBay. I doubt anyone would really be pulled up on something like that, either, but if a major company made a habit of it I'm sure there would be issues.

Does the estate have to defend their trademark/name against all threats? Or can they just pick and choose what they defend it against? They're suing Google, but why didn't they sue Cisco? Cisco had a Nexus product (actually quite a few of them) for a few years now:

Nexus 7000
Nexus 5000
Nexus 2000
Nexus 1000

Hell, the government even has Nexus Cards which are are WHTI-compliant documents for land and sea travel, as well as air travel when traveling to and from airports using the NEXUS program, and provide expedited travel via land, air or sea to approved members between the U.S. and Canada border.

Why does this American Federal employee talk like Speedy Gonzales?

Oh, I get it, besides being ignorant on how people in Mexico speak, you were too lazy to look up who the CBP is. Here's a hint, the first two words in the full name are: United States: http://www.cbp.gov/

When I got my new Nexus card it came with a foil case (looks like fairly thick copper foil) and documentation explaining the case is a security measure to prevent ID theft by remote reading of the RFID tag in the card. I've waved it in front of the Nexus readers with and without the case, and it works (at least on those readers). It's actually pretty handy as it's barely bigger than the card, adds almost no thickness, and prevents the card from getting all scratched up like my credit cards.

Do the passport cards not come with these foil sheaths? Or is this just a matter of people ignoring instructions and not using the case.

The border patrol has approx 25,000 officers to cover the 2,000 mile border.

Think again. Think harder.

[ U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP] is responsible for guarding nearly 7,000 miles of land border the United States shares with Canada and Mexico and 2,000 miles of coastal waters surrounding the Florida peninsula and off the coast of Southern California. The agency also protects 95,000 miles of maritime border in partnership with the United States Coast Guard.

[There are] more than 17,000 CBP Border Patrol agents, 1,000 CBP Air and Marine agents, and almost 22,000 CBP officers and agriculture specialists, together with the nation's largest law enforcement canine program.

On a typical day in fiscal year 2008, CBP processed approximately 1 million passengers and pedestrians; 70,000 containers; and 331,000 privately owned vehicles.

257,000 international arrivals by air. 43,000 by ship.

There were 73 arrests of criminals
2,796 apprehensions...for illegal entry

Seized -

7,621 pounds of narcotics
$296,000 in undeclared or illicit currency

4,125 prohibited meat, plant materials or animal products, including 400 agricultural pests at ports of entry

Rescued 3 illegal crossers in distress or dangerous conditions

Deployed -

1,275 canine enforcement teams

18,276 vehicles, 275 aircraft, 180 watercraft, and 252 equestrian patrols This is CBP

As a citizen, I don't really care whether my gov (US) uses Microsoft, Mac, Solaris, Linux, or AmigaOS. I *do* care when they publish documents I need to work with in an undocumented proprietary format. And no, OOXML doesn't fix that (it only pretends to). Yes, I can get by with Open Office DOC importer for the time being.

This may explain their actions...look how much a BP officer is paid:

Q: What is the pay and benefits package?
A: New agents are hired at the GL-5, GL-7 or GL-9 level depending on education and experience and are paid at a special salary rate for Federal law enforcement personnel. The base starting salary is GL-5 ($36,658), GL-7 ($41,729), and GL-9 ($46,542) grade levels, with excellent opportunity for overtime pay. In addition, you'll receive a uniform allowance of $1500.00 and an excellent Federal Government benefits package including life insurance, health insurance, liberal retirement benefits, and a thrift savings plan (401-K).

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/careers/customs_careers/border_careers/bp_agent/faqs_working_for_the_usbp.xml#PayandBenefits

You're frightened because the Customs has always had the power to search persons and physical objects at the border without a warrant, or that someone actually thought it might be a good idea to extend the longstanding and repeatedly upheld border search exception to include data on electronic devices? If it has always been acceptable (and repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court[1]) to search for anything else illegal at the border without a warrant, can someone make a good argument why data on one's person or in one's possession at the time of border crossing should be excluded under those same provisions?

Or are you frightened because you subscribe to the idea that the US has turned into a fascist regime, when the EU and individual European nations have their own laundry list of controversial laws and provisions attempting to grapple with how to handle electronic data in a legal sense in the continually emerging Information Age?

[1]:
United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985)
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 562-563 (1976)
United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152-53 (2004)
United States v. Johnson, 991 F.2d 1287, 1291-92 (7th Cir. 1993)