Humiliation greets visitor at airport

The Mercury News ^ | August 13, 2002 | Truong Phuoc Khánh

[snopercod]

Every summer for the past 25 years, New Zealand native Maggie Anderson and her American husband have visited their family in Portola Valley.

But never before had her visit begun in handcuffs and humiliation.

Upon landing at Los Angeles International Airport at 11 a.m on July 24, Anderson -- a former flight attendant who had flown in and out of U.S. airports hundreds of times -- was questioned and arrested by federal immigration agents.

[DainBramage]

While I agree with you that disarmament does not promote security in society, I have reservations about letting anyone who chooses to carry on a plane. Our country is full of good people, and at the same time loaded with nutbars. How safe is it at 30,000 feet and a shootout between a nut and a well meaning 2nd amendment beleiving patriot occurs. Seems the only solution is not allowing guns on flights (except sky marshals).

While you disapprove of the tactics used at airports, you don't offer any other solution to providing security at airports. Everyone is complaining like they know they could do it better.

[Equality 7-2521]

For the first half of this year, the INS has denied 7,422 individuals admission into the country by air.

The solution is obvious: fly into Tijuana or Jaurez and walk across. The INS turns a blind eye to people entering on foot.

[DainBramage]

I'm sure it would be tough if my wife were handled this way, but if she had broken the law, the fact that she were detained and deported while the country is on security alert after a terrorist attack would be her fault. At least they had women do it in private.

Why would anyone just assume that it would be okay to transport someone to a detention center without searching them first? Common sense and I'm sure SOP. When police put someone in their unit, the first thing they do after hand cuffing them is search them for weapons and contraband.

[Black Agnes]

Actually, anecdotally. In Atlanta, allegedly the black male security goobers will go out of their way to *repeatedly* search any single black female. (happened to a friend of mine and to every other single black female within line of sight as well...) *sigh*. That probably falls under the 'men will be men' discussion tho.

[ZinGirl]

but if she had broken the law

right...but what if she hadn't broken the law? What if she was just "looking suspicious" to those in charge...or even selected for a random search....and she was frisked, fondled under her bra (whether in the privacy of another room or not is not the crux of the matter. Nobody touches my breasts except my husband....anybody else would be a violation), presumed guilty.....then cleared after satisfying someone's checklist that they had, indeed, throughly and aggressively searched a random passenger...when all she was doing was trying to come home to you?

gulp....if I had to go through all that, I don't think I'd merely think, 'ah, well...it's for security'....especially if I saw them respecting a muslim's wishes to not remove a headpiece.

[DainBramage]

Good little lemming

You know nothing about me. I am far from a good lemming, but I do not hate every single thing our government does like alot of people here. They are wrong alot of times, most likely due to the fact that our only choices are human beings. If we could elect God to be the president then things would be much better I'm sure.

Some people see only Tyranny and injustice in every move made by the Government, yet without it there is anarchy.

Bottom line in this situation is she messed up and was caught. The overreaction can be debated, but the fault for her to be singled out in the first place was hers alone.

[jammer]

You know nothing about me.

Of course I do...I read your replies. And those replies show you to be a lemming, going for security and damn the consequences.

And the false dichotomy of tyranny versus anarchy is silly.

[DainBramage]

what if she hadn't broken the law

That's not what this article is about. If you want to turn it into a hypothetical discussion about jack booted thugery in our country then start another thread. My feelings on that are alot different.

[DainBramage]

Where did I ever say damn the consequences? Go back and read all the others replies about "I hold George Bush personally responsible or this!" and Tyranny, be it Repub or Dem is wrong!"

No matter what is done its gonna be wrong to you. My point is at least they seem to be tightening up.

Like others you are a brave man when you can insult from a keyboard.

[jammer]

Read your own replies. You don't care what the consequences are because you feel that the actions are necessary for security. That would make reasonable observers agree that you are a lemming.

The second paragraph is rubbish, another false dichotomy--either I agree with everything or "no matter what is done is gonna be wrong". That's not true and insults the intelligence of every reader of this thread.

What are you questioning? My courage? What other way do we have of handling this? What are you after? A name and address so that you can make your first call to TIPS or whatever the hell it is?

It is much braver to question this type of thing in the current climate than it is to be a sycophant for every insult to the Constitution that comes along. Sure, you'll be safe, but we've had your kind throughout history. And that kind has never made a difference for the good.

[jammer]

BTW, I do like (and have copied) a lot of the URL's on your personal page. So, let's just disagree, I will apologize for calling you a lemming, and sooner or later one of us will be able to say "I told you so."

[xJones]

In Atlanta, allegedly the black male security goobers will go out of their way to *repeatedly* search any single black female. (happened to a friend of mine and to every other single black female within line of sight as well...) *sigh*. That probably falls under the 'men will be men' discussion tho.

Sigh, indeed. Maybe we should also put it in the "these airport security goobers are making life so difficult for ALL honest and decent people that just want to take a plane flight" discussion. :) I'm hopeful that the airport security mess will sort out eventually, just because it HAS to.

Best regards, xJones

[Under the Radar]

"We cannot rely on someone's citizenship or phenotype to determine whether or not we will scrutinize them breaking our laws."

Yes we can. The type of violation, the severity of it, and who the person is, where they came from and who they are married to should make a difference.

I don't have a problem, personally, will us using race as a factor in how we apply our laws. I imagine that most on this thread do, however, and I find it sublimely ironic how hypocritical posters are being here. If you want to use someone's appearance as a factor, great, but be prepared for the unintended consequence. And have the decency to be honest about your feelings about race as well. If you want "dark-looking" folks to get special scrutiny, please apply this desire of yours accross the board. That is the only way it is going to work. Furthermore, don't be surprised when it fails-- many Middle Easterners look "white."

I am intrigued that you think that this white Western woman shouldn't have had to suffer so because she broke our laws. If she had been Mexican, or Pakistani, would she have deserved that treatment? I take it from this post, and others you have made, that your answer is "yes."

So far on this thread I have noticed a consistent fallacy. I think we all agree that the mouth-breathers who are paid minimum wage to enforce airline security are not doing their job. However, to say that we should let one law breaker go because she was white and female, and focus on those "obviously" Middle-Eastern young men, misses the point. Anyone who is paying attention knows that our borders are under attack by hordes of invaders, both legal and illegal. This is true of other civilized countries as well. Why do you think that, simply because this woman was from NZ, that she wouldn't be a Middle Eastern citizen originally? How were they to know until they saw her? Her file was flagged, she was detained. You are telling me they should have taken one look at her Nordic features and said, "No, let's let this one go."? You can't possibly mean that. The fact is, sadly, that one can no longer assume anything by saying someone is "American." This is true of people from other first world nations as well. She broke the law, they flagged her file, she was treated properly, unless you want us to adopt a policy of giving folks a pass based upon their Aryan blood.

[Guillermo]

Yep, white New Zealander women are prime terrorist suspects (as the INS issues Mohammed Atta a visa 6 months after 9-11).

[SarahW]

There is no "Aryan" race. BTW. But white female farmers from New Zealand married to white American men with non-islamic surnames should indeed be subject to less scrutiny and certainly less reaction to minor, first-time visa violations. She did actually go home after, and caused no trouble during that previous eight day overstay.

If white female Kiwi farmers had flown planes into the WTC, and were bombing military bases and dumping guys in wheelchairs off the decks of cruise ships, I would be all for what happened to this woman.

You are going to have to face a hard reality - race should be A FACTOR in profiles.

The totality of the picture also matters. But yes, a man from pakistan should have gotten the treatment this woman did. Absolutely a man from Saudi Arabia should have, or a man with an arabic name from indonesia.
Radical islamacists are the ones waging war and blowing people up, and there is linkage disequilibrium between that radical group and "phenotype", and country of origin. We should target them because it is a more effective use of resources, and not target a woman like the kiwi chick because it is not necessary, not productive, and a gratuitous waste of time and resources.

However, this woman should have been dealt with differently.
Why? Because of who she is, where she is from, who she is married to, and the type and extent of her infraction, and her history of any previous infractions.

I don't think she should get off scott-free for overstaying her visa for eight days while visiting her parents on a previous trip. She could be fined, or her visa suspended.

[Jason_b]

What's become of my country bump.

[chimera]

The solution is obvious: fly into Tijuana or Jaurez and walk across. The INS turns a blind eye to people entering on foot.

Good point. There is tremendous focus on security at airports. This is good and necessary if done correctly (profiling those who are reasonable suspects and not harrassing those who are unlikely to be terrorists). But I have often wondered about the other ways individuals can get in here. The southern border gets a lot of focus, too, but our northern border is completely open. There's a long stretch from Duluth to Seattle that has nothing more than a fence. Just walk across. Same with seaborne arrival. Just hop a slow boat to any coastal port and walk off. Jump on a launch from a ship anchored offshore and pull up on an unguarded beach. Then do your best to blend in, pay for things with cash (in small increments), stay out of trouble, and you're in.

What to do about those things? Hell, I haven't a clue unless one were to undertake a massive and costly (not just in monetary terms) program of internal security, that many of us just wouldn't buy (your papers please). But I know this, that strip searching little old ladies and taking kid's toy GI Joes with their 1" rifles, is not a solution.

[Equality 7-2521]

I understand your points and [for the most part] agree, but I will say that one must be a very motivated terrorist to do the hiking, camping, canoeing, and more hiking/backpacking necessary to enter across most of the northern border. I've canoed Quetico and the BWCA and that's a lot of work.

[Under the Radar]

Yes, I see your point.

Now, how are we going to implement it? Let's see, we should pass a law requiring everyone to carry papers declaring their religion. They would need to be independently verified by the government, of course. Since we consider religion to be a deciding factor in how we enforce our laws, perhaps citizens should be branded with the appropriate religious symbol? Of course, this would cause problems with conversion, but I am sure that we could create a government agency that would allow one to apply to convert...

[SarahW]

No, you look at their "phenotype", their name, their country of origin, their age, their sex, their spouse, their violation (type and egregiousness), etc.

Yes, you use race. It's part of the equation.