nsplayr

Can confirm. Was instructed to place a banana in its own bin for scanning going through Pensacola a couple months back. And I have pre-check and showed military ID. It was baffling. Folks, if I wanted to use an airplane as a weapon, and I have a lot of training on how to do exactly that, x-raying my banana separately from the rest of my stuff ain’t gonna stop me. FFS TSA it’s the “ultimate one guy shits his pants and now we all have to wear diapers forever” scenario.

Make those IDs free and truly universal and I’m down. A 90% solution photo ID ( what we have now) isn’t acceptable. I won’t leave those other 10% of citizens behind. Election security and integrity is important, but in-person voter fraud is incredibly rare while citizen disenfranchisement is far too common and accepted.

This is completely at odds with protecting and defending the constitution man. It’s not up to you or me whether or not a fellow citizen should be voting or not, and it’s a betrayal of democracy to work to prevent citizens from voting. Why is it fire and brimstone from a lot of y’all to in any way limit access to firearms but it’s super blasé about denying citizens their ability to vote? If you are calling me hypocritical for wanting some limits to the 2A, I am absolutely saying the same when you casually shrug off the disenfranchisement of fellow citizens, and I’d argue the later is much worse. Plenty of representatives forms of government function without unfettered acccess to guns, by definition they cannot when people can’t vote.

Because those people are citizens of the United States and the law guarantees the right to vote for every citizen. It’s the entire core of representative government. I don’t know what else to tell ya man.

Whether you think it’s valid or not, there are millions of citizens that lack the type of IDs needed to vote. I am certainly invested in our democratic processes enough to ensure I’m registered and have the right ID and etc., but not everyone is like me, yet their vote counts equally if they are a citizen. Having the empathy to understand and accommodate people who’s circumstances are different than yours is important to me and most on the left, and in fact feeling a personal social responsibility to protect and promote the rights and wellbeing of others is at the heart of progressive morality, but I don’t necessarily expect most of you guys to agree or see it that way. My view of the second amendment is that its important that citizens have access to firearms in a way that preserves the safety of everyone. Where I might disagree with some conservatives is on the scope of what types of firearms should be accessible and if they should be carried in certain places or not, but the right to bear arms in the US is well established in the constitution and case law. I sincerely believe that the right to vote and the sanctity of that right is the most fundamental aspect of a representative form of government. Depriving people of their right to vote is one of the worst things the government could do to a citizen beyond killing them outright or inprisoning them unjustly. Do you disagree? Why? I’ve written a lot lately and y’all know my POV. Feel free to make a detailed and impassioned case for the opposite of what I’m saying, I’m genuinely interested. But just calling BS with no other inputs isn’t gonna really benefit anyone.

If we issue valid work permits to immigrants already living here who want them, and if we issue free, widely-available national ID cards to every citizen so that they can access public benefits that are only for citizens, then I'm on totally board. Progressive objections to current voter ID laws aren't based on some kind of esoteric opposition to secure voting or wanting non-citizens to vote. I want secure, interference elections that reflect the will of the citizens! Progressives object to recent efforts to enact and enforce strict ID laws because even though the concept is foreign and unthinkable to most of us, not every citizen has an acceptable ID nor the means to easily get one. Enforcing strict ID laws therefore deprives those citizens of their most important right as a citizen, to cast a vote equal to that of any other citizen. If we solve the underlying problem with an effort to get every citizen, and I mean every single citizen, free, legal, secure IDs, then great, let's require them at the polls to keep non-citizens from voting and let's require them to be shown in order to access benefits not meant for non-citizens. If the surface-level problem with undocumented immigrants is the concept of law-breaking rather than an opposition to immigrants in general, I vote we solve that very specific problem by legalizing more short- and long-term economic immigration. Strong market forces are attracting people to the US and we are greatly strengthened by them coming here, so let's not fight forces that compel people to cross harsh terrain under the guidance of extortionist, criminal coyotes. Instead, let's welcome people in the front door in a legal way and allow them to help make our country even better. FWIW I also want to secure the southern border, the northern border, and all ports of entry for national security purposes. I care deeply about the welfare of other people, even those from other countries, but I still lock my doors at night. I also support deporting immigrants who commit serious crimes; when you're a guest you have to be on your best behavior. All that said, and I'm on the progressive side of the Democratic party! I think there's lots that most of us can agree on in principle and there are many moderate Democrats and elected party leaders who are very much ready to play ball on comprehensive immigration reform that would require implementing some conservative priorities on this issue. But while we're talking about this, keep in mind that many conservatives have been against a national ID program in the past or even making state IDs more easily accessible to citizens who need them. Many conservatives are arguing for sharp reductions in legal immigration. Some on the far-right have quite explicitly said that they care about maintaining a white majority in the United States and therefore oppose immigration by non-white people. Plenty of progressives have also opposed national ID programs and have differed amongst themselves about how to secure the border and what levels of immigration will work best. I think there's work to be done by everyone to find a workable solution if we actually want to fix our immigration system rather than just use the problems with the current system every 2-4 years as campaign issues.

Copy, will push it more when I get in. Hope things are good for you and your new gig! #ThreadDerail

Everything is back at NGB waiting to get the stamp, then I guess a date will follow? Hard to say. Have checked in with Alex recently but he hadn’t heard anything new. I go on orders for the summer starting next week, so I’ll be able to poke around more frequently.

I think there should be a careful process to become a citizen, which we have, and that process should be open to all immigrants who aspire to be citizens. If we need to make some kind of special rules for naturalization that make it "extra-hard" for people who came here as undocumented immigrants initially, I'm open to that depending on the details. That is at the core of basically all bipartisan comprehensive immigration deals over the years - an uphill (but not impossible) path to citizenship for those who came here as undocumented immigrants, paired with significantly more resources to enforce the border and various legal immigration tweaks depending on which bill you're talking about. I'm also open to the concept that not all Americans need to be citizens, because that's essentially what we have now. There are people that have been living and working in our communities for 30+ years, and they are Americans just like me even if they are undocumented and I'm a citizen. To me, being an American is about what you do while you're here, not who you are or where you came from or whether or not you have a specific piece of paper. If that big-picture idea means we end up designing a system where we have long-term residents who are ineligible for citizenship, and they are ok with that and we as citizens are ok with that, great. Unlike the caricature often painted, speaking as a Democrat, I sincerely do not care what political party immigrants may support one day way down the road if they naturalize and become citizens, nor is it a deal breaker necessarily if we end up deciding that these folks shouldn't be allowed to become citizens at all (although I would push back on that). It's not a political play, it's a moral principle. Welcoming immigrants and especially refugees is the American thing to do, it's the christian thing to do if that applies to you, and it's the moral thing to do, at least based on the morals I live by.

I'm not really all about abolishing government agencies (Hi Rick Perry! What's it like running a department you wanted to abolish?), so let's call it "Reform ICE." And ICE isn't the same as CPB even though they are related and in the same department. I'm for a strong CBP, a vibrant USCIS (helps immigrants naturalize and become citizens), and a reformed ICE that focuses on helping make sure all immigrants here to work receive and use valid work permits, and that all employers enforce employment law. Maybe you can take Senator Gillibrand seriously without taking her literally, like I did with Rick Perry. "Abolish" in a political campaign often means "reform" once in government.

Unfortunately I’m still waiting for a slot so to speak. The Tennessee Air National Guard, southern hospitality, but also southern efficiency 😂 It’s all good, will happen soon and they’re taking care of me in the mean time. Re: light attack, I know a pilot and CSO who are non-fighter types that are flying round 2 of the expirament now. Hopefully the AF isn’t shy about letting 11U guys get back in manned cockpits...they’re gonna need everybody they can get the way the trend lines are going!

So now that we've aired the reductio ad absurdum argument of open borders, can we put it to bed? No one of consequence I know on any side of any aisle is calling for open borders or unlimited immigration to the US. The debate then is between a significant negative immigration flow, by lowering legal immigration to historic lows, working hard to completely eliminate illegal immigration, and deporting all the illegal immigrants currently in the country on the one hand, and some other upper bound on the other. My view is that our country has it at its foundational core the responsibility and privilege to welcome immigrants and refugees and that we should welcome as many as is practicable. The details of what that means are obviously up for debate, but I would start with much higher allowances for legal immigration, long-term work permits for all non-citizens already in the country who want them, tight border controls for national security reasons, and strict enforcement of labor laws and work permitting requirements when it comes to employers. In general, if an immigrant or refugee shows up at the door and wants to work in the US, we (within reason) should let them do so in a legal way, but we must prevent employers from hiring them under illegal work arrangements that undercut citizens looking for work. When employers hire illegal immigrants, they often underpay and abuse them, to the detriment of both those workers as well as every American worker who might be looking for a job but isn't willing to work in illegal conditions. If the vast majority of (or ideally all) foreign workers in the US had valid work permits and were not subjected to illegal work conditions, that's better for everyone, foreigners and citizens alike. This story was local where I live, and it demonstrates how our priorities around immigration aren't right IMHO: https://nashvillepublicradio.org/post/tennessee-town-grapples-fear-after-ice-raid-shakes-community#stream/0 This rural meat packing plant is working folks 60+ hour weeks and pays them $300 in cash weekly under the table. Not only is that well below minimum wage, the owner is also defrauding the US government by not paying payroll taxes (to the alleged tune of $2.5m). But what happens when ICE finds out? They raid the plant, arresting over 100 people, but notably not the owner of the plant. In a town of 3,000 people, more than 3% of their total population, all folks who are working and putting food on their families' plates, are suddenly rolled up but not ole' Mr. Brantley who employed and abused these people for years while stiffing the government on taxes he owed and repelled local citizens with the abhorrent work conditions and criminally low in his plant. The message being sent right now is clear: employee illegal immigrants, and you only stand to benefit from cheap, easily abused labor, and your tax bill is so much lower! No need to raise wages or improve conditions in order to attract Tennesseans who are citizens that might be looking for work. But if you dare to work without proper documentation, Uncle Sam is out to get ya. It's completely back-asswards and unnecessarily inhumane.

- Numbers USA is explicitly an anti-immigration interest group that has all the incentives in the world to show you numbers and messaging that will make you vote for leaders who want less immigration. I'd recommend finding much more neutral data sources, like the census bureau, if you want to talk numbers. - Census growth projections for the total US population have the numbers at 420m in 2060. - The number of undocumented immigrants estimated to be in the country right now is lower than in 2007, reflecting negative growth in that population over the last decade. - Recent US population growth rates have been historically slow, meaning we're in a period of slower-than-average growth. 🤷‍♂️

The IRS assumes that a large number of tax filers using ITINs are undocumented immigrants, and in 2015 the IRS received 4.4 million federal income tax returns using ITINs rather than SSNs, and those tax filers paid $23.6 billion in income taxes, which includes FICA, federal, and state income taxes. Undocumented immigrants are specifically encouraged to file federal income taxes because it is a sign of "good moral character" that can be considered in the future if they become eligible to apply for permanent status. Here's my BL: nitpicking these numbers is kinda small-ball. If you're primarily concerned with money, like I said, let's bring all the undocumented workers out of the shadows, give them some kind of legal status for work, and then they will be subject to the exact same taxes as everyone else without having to play any paperwork funny games. They'd likely still being ineligible for many of the benefits that taxes enable, so overall it's a huge net plus for our social welfare programs. In fact we're already there when it comes to FICA taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay quite a bit of FICA taxes and receive zero benefits, which greatly helps the system. It goes without saying that having a steady stream of younger, healthier, working-age folks paying into our social welfare systems while extracting very few benefits from those systems is an actuary's dream. But I suspect that's not the solution you're looking for, so answering the money questions are not going to change a lot of minds IMHO. I'm happy to talk details if you're genuinely curious, but folks are mainly concerned with the impact of immigration on their cultural identity and seeing a place for people like themselves and their children in an American society they see as changing too fast or in ways they are uncomfortable with. Those concerns aren't unfounded, don't automatically make someone a racist (paging many on the left), deserve respect, and can't be addressed by numbers. Those cultural identity concerns need to be addressed by talking about shared values, how everyone has a bright future in our evolving and changing society, and by painting a hopefully, forward-looking message. My message on immigration is that in a nation of immigrants, build by immigrants, where The American Dream is that no one is bound by class or race or religion, immigration will continue to be a great source of strength and vitality, enabling the US to outlast and surpass any wanna-be competitors on the global stage. Every American and everyone around the world who aspires to be an American has a place in a truly democratic, just, and compassionate multicultural, multiracial and harmonious society. That dream has never been achieved in human history before, and it's a worthy goal for an ambitious, still-young nation and we have the best chance by far of anyone hoping to achieve it. Chris Hayes and Ezra Klein has a great podcast on this exact topic. //off soapbox // Like I said before, if you'd rather nitpick tax numbers and frame this challenge in the language of infestations, rapists, gangs, drugs and violence, I'm more than happy to let you keep pitching that message. Governor Gillespe in Virginia send his thanks to the super PACs for all those really effective MS-13 ads /sarcasm. (Ed Gillespe is a decent guy and generally moderate Republican, but he ran a very right-wing, immigration-heavy campaign for governor in my favorite commonwealth and he lost to the real-life governor, Democrat Ralph Northam). That fact that many Democratic Party leaders are dickless in their messaging and small-minded in their policy vision around immigration (among many other things) is not an indication of the lack of potential for progress on important issues going forward.

That is discussed in detail at the link in my previous post.

“How Much do Undocumented Workers Pay in Taxes? The IRS estimates that undocumented immigrants pay over $9 billion in withheld payroll taxes annually. Undocumented immigrants also help make the Social Security system more solvent, as they pay into the system but are ineligible to collect benefits upon retiring. In 2010, $12 billion more was collected from Social Security payroll taxes of undocumented workers than were paid out in benefits.” https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/how-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-federal-taxes-an-explainer/ If you’re big beef is that undocumented immigrants aren’t paying their fair or taxes, even after considering the data above, then let’s bring them out of the shadows, get them work permits, and make them subject to the same taxes that citizens have to pay. I’m all for that solution.

As a card-carrying member of the left, I will say that I don't support deporting almost any of the people who are undocumented immigrants. Progressives shouldn't hide on this issue and I certainly won't. The vast, vast majority of immigrants, both those with proper documentation and those without, are working hard, paying taxes, and pursing The American Dream. Immigration has been and continues to be a great source of strength for this country. It is a foundational principle that America is a safe haven for immigrants and refugees fleeing persecution elsewhere and seeking to make a better life for themselves and for their children. But good people can in fact disagree on the particulars, and I do support locking up and deporting violent criminals as well as strong border security for broader national security reasons almost completely unrelated to immigration. I applaud progressives for finally starting to wise up and stop using conservative language and moral frames on the issues. Conservatives have generally been much better at framing issues in a way that emphasizes their hierarchical moral point of view and repeating that language and those frames over and over and over again to the voting public. Progressives need to frame issues based on their compassionate/nurturing moral point of view, and so kudos to any public leaders or regular people who do so on a consistent basis. George Lakoff has written many good books on this topic if you're curious. So as a progressive, I won't be calling other human beings "illegal aliens" when "undocumented immigrants" will work much better. And it has nothing to do with my stomach, it has to do with my brain. All children in this country should be attending school. People who have been in this country since childhood are Americans just as much as you or me. We as a country have enough compassion and capacity and common sense to accept those positions. That's a message I'm willing to take to the American people in contrast to the conservative fear-mongering about gangs and rapists and infestation and aliens.

Just pointing out SCOTUS precedent which is the law of the land...if that is "rationalizations" then ok, I'm not sure what else to tell ya. If I may quote a great military leader, "I find your lack of faith disturbing." Luckily the Constitution doesn't required you're belief in SOCUTS rulings for them to be the law In terms of a discussion, that's harder...agreed that I wish we could agree on more. As was pointed out above, the ruling was "narrow" not in the vote count deciding the case, but in the scope of the ruling in favor of Mr. Phillips. SCOTUS didn't rule that he was allowed to refuse service based on his sincerely held religious beliefs (they dodged that broader question), they instead ruled that the Colorado state agency that originally ruled that he was in violation of anti-discrimination laws had treated his case unfairly and had not actually considered his religious beliefs, as they were required to do. So BL: TBD on the bigger question. Good extensive analysis of the ruling in relatively plain english found here.

I know it was probably said tongue-in-cheek, but this is an incredibly terrible idea that flies in the face of everything our institutions and the rule of law stand for. When you swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, it's this kind of stuff that you should be standing against, not advocating for.

I am not a fan of the revolving door of top administration officials moving seamlessly between those positions and positions lobbying, sitting on corporate boards, etc. So ok, a NSC official emailed a very recently-departed admin official who was working on a political campaign and discussed what should probably have been privileged analysis of that official's view on who should be the next CJCS, let's file that under, "That's not great." Meanwhile, Paul Manafort is in jail for witness tampering while out on $10m bail, and was originally indicted for unregistered lobbying for a foreign power, money laundering, bank fraud, and conspiracy to defraud the United States, among other charges. So in the grand scale of things that are shady...you be the judge. No one is above the law, you and I can agree on that, but let's differentiate between things that are untoward privileges of an elite class of power brokers, and things that are actually, no-shitter federal felonies.

Maxine Waters is not great and I would not vote for her. Our political discourse is not in a good place right now and I'm a fan of people keeping it civil whenever possible. That being said...making threats is not something any elected official should be doing, so I'm assuming you'd like the President to turn down the heat on this situation right? What do you think he means when he says, "Be careful what you wish for Max!" to his very large audience of followers?

Yes. Religion is a protected class in that you can't say, "I don't serve Christians/Jews/Muslims here," but not in the sense that any specific religious beliefs are protected, nor can those beliefs allow you to discriminate against another protected class, e.g. I'm a Jew and therefore I won't serve Muslims, etc. Since the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary interpret the laws passed by Congress, and the executive branch writes most of the rules that federal agencies adhere to...yes, vote for elected officials who promise to change or adhere to the set of beliefs you share. It is however a feature, not a bug, that there isn't direct democracy to determine the civil rights of others, i.e. tyranny of the majority. California's Proposition 8 and it's eventual nullification in the form of court rulings is a good recent example of the courts basically saying no, even a popular majority of voters can't decide certain issues. Like most things, it's not black or white. Standard WIC answer applies: it depends.

Him Him https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=106117&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=100000280748790 NORFOLK, Va. (NNS) -- The U.S. Navy announced June 23 the death of a Navy pilot who was involved in a mishap at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. Lt. Christopher Carey Short, from Canandaigua, New York, died June 22 when the A-29 aircraft he was piloting crashed while on a mission over the Red Rio Bombing Range, part of White Sands Missile Range, north of Holloman. The cause of the mishap is under investigation. For more information about Short, contact Cmdr. Doug Gabos, Commander, Naval Air Forces Reserve public affairs officer at 757-322-5652 or doug.gabos@navy.mil. For any additional queries about the mishap, contact Lt. Col. Robert Carver, 49th Wing Public Affairs Office, Holloman Air Force Base at 575-635-7774 or robert.n.carver1.mil@mail.mil.

Heard from a friend of mine (and active board member here) about the crash and that, luckily, the person with minor injuries was another mutual friend of ours. He’s a truly great American & thank god he made it out safe. Fingers crossed for the other crew member.

Exactly. At the ranks of Captain and below, my Guard MQ-9 unit has exactly 1x 11U pilot. All others are 18X. There are definitely a bunch of Majors and more than a few Lt. Cols that would love to hop in a jet and rage again, but the future of the squadron is completely incompatible with the likely crew requirements for light attack. In 6-9 years the number of "real" pilots remaining will be greatly reduced due to retirements. To me, that's the elephant in the room that should be deflating dudes' boners just a little bit. The states are chomping at the bit to get them because iron on the ramp = jobs, but they'd basically need to take on a new and separate mission while also maintaining MQ-9 to make it work IMHO. Let alone that the AF hasn't bought jack nor shit yet...here's to hoping