TSA to Raise Groping Fees Charged to Passengers

Americans to pay more for abuse at airports while feds give illegals free handouts for crossing unguarded borders

The Transportation Security Administration will raise fees added to airline ticket prices which offset the costs for performing body scans and pat downs, all while the federal government encourages illegals to freely cross America’s largely unguarded borders.

The fees are currently $2.50 for a non-stop flight or $5.00 for a trip with a layover, but with next month’s increase that Congress approved back in December, the new fees will be $5.60 for a non-stop flight and an extra $5.60 for each leg of the trip when the flights are over four hours apart.

“The revenue is to be used to offset TSA costs for providing civil aviation security services, after stipulated amounts are applied to reduction of the Federal deficit,” stated Ross Feinstein, press secretary for the TSA, in a press release to Fox Business.

In other words, the TSA wants to charge passengers more money for having their rights violated with impunity while also ensuring that airports across America are zones of Orwellian tyranny intended to turn America into a compliant prison population.

Time and time again, passengers have complained about being sexually assaulted by TSA screeners, yet the agency has done nothing to stop such practices even though the TSA has quietly admitted that the invasive body scanners and pat downs are ineffective at stopping a threat of which the agency admits “there is no evidence.”

“…Both the nude body scanners and the pat-downs are more extensive and intensive than necessary to detect non-metallic explosives in light of available alternatives,” reads a Statement of Argument for a court case regarding the TSA’s security practices. “Additionally, they are ineffective at addressing the threat at hand and are incredibly invasive, which is to be balanced against the risk of a threat for which the TSA has admitted there is no evidence. Accordingly, both procedures are independently unconstitutional.” Continue reading

No comments:

Post a Comment