Certain airports handling international flights in jeopardy according the DHS head Markwayne Mullin

I can’t comment without making a political post.

A host on a major network said this today:

Faulkner: "Sanctuary cities include Boston, Chicago, Denver, LA, NY,
Philadelphia, SF. All of those airports handle 1,100 int'l flights per
day. They're not just gonna not fly. They're gonna go to red states
and cities. A boon for red states. People will just really hate living
in blue states."

I will not be changing my travel plans since it seems highly unlikely to occur.

Happy travels.

My usual reaction would be to say , “it will never happen”. I’ve had to drop that as my automatic response as so many things I thought would never happen have incredibly happened.

They're not just gonna not fly. They're gonna go to red states
and cities. A boon for red states.

And those red states and cities all have airports capable of handling those numbers of international flights? Of course, the assumption that international fliers have that kind of interest in visiting those cities is a big one. One could equally assume that international visitors will see this as further evidence that they are unwelcome, resulting in a further tourism decline. And when demand decreases, so will the number of flights that previously carried them. But isn't that one of the goals of isolationism? If so, it would seem that this move is right on target.

My usual reaction would be to say , “it will never happen”. I’ve had to drop that as my automatic response as so many things I thought would never happen have incredibly happened.

Ditto.

I can’t comment without making a political post.

Not politics. This is Fed. v. States

But isn't that one of the goals of isolationism?

Not at all. It is about the Fed. holding the purse strings of the States.

If this does happen, this type of Federal extortion has happened before. It is a tough business decision for the mayors and governors in those major cities and states who grant sanctuary status.

In 1974 the Fed government forced states to lower their maximum speed limit to 55 mph or lose federal funds during the oil crisis. Today it would be asking cities/states to eliminate sanctuary cities/states or lose CBP services during the immigration crisis.

In 1974 states had to make a financial business decision. It sounds like there is a possibility states and cities might have to make another financial business decision. (Just a hint...in 1974 the "Fed government" wasn't run by the people you might be thinking about at the moment.)

If this does happen and cities and states decide not to comply and do not drop sanctuary city/state status, the economy in those cities and states will be impacted no doubt. Of course, while the parents fight, the kids lose. International travel from those airports would be non-existent and affect a lot of people.

Tough choice for mayors and governors if this goes into effect. Just like 1974 all over again. The Fed v. States. He who holds the purse strings makes the rules.

Tough choice for mayors and governors if this goes into effect.

I mean, the choice of allowing the federal government to detain and torture people should not be a tough choice. They cannot allow that to happen. This isn't a choice on driving 55, it is about basic human rights.

Threadwear, this IS entirely about politics and to suggest otherwise is completely disingenuous.

And given California sends more money to Washington than it receives, I guess the State of California holds those purse strings.

Threadwear, the 1974 action was across the boards, affecting every state, not just those that were blue. Not even close to being the same thing. Conservation of fuel reserves affects everyone. Suppression of human rights is, in this case a targeted measure.

I'd also point out that half of the targeted cities will host FIFA games, and LA will have the Olympics. Exactly how would international athletes and visitors get to these destinations if this plan goes through and the cities dont back down ( as I hope they wont).

Sounds more like a brain fart than anything real as such a move would cause absolute chaos and negatively impact the tourist industry (into the USA) even more.

If this insanity actually happens, it's going to alienate voters of every persuasion in the targeted cities and beyond. C'mon, anyone who thinks this would only damage the states to be 'punished' isn't seeing the bigger picture. The US hospitality industry is ALREADY hurting; let's kick it some more?

Threadwear, this IS entirely about politics and to suggest otherwise
is completely disingenuous.

Amen.

(I live in a suburb of Minneapolis. As if we haven't been handed enough grief, we're on this latest hit list for damn sure.)

Part of the pattern.

A threat is made. The media goes crazy. The internet lights up. It goes away in a few days.

How often have we seen this. It's not going to happen. Especially not this close to the midterms.

Now there's talk of a new $25 dollar bill with you-know-who's picture on it.

Part of the pattern. A threat is made. The media goes crazy. The
internet lights up. It goes away in a few days.

I agree. I would rephrase it a bit though: A threat is made. The media reports it. There is a negative reaction. It goes away in a few days...usually. Almost always.

Happy travels.

Note to self - don't forget to take out travel insurance on our upcoming two major vacations!

========================

I would think this has about as much chance of happening as the 'plan' (threat?) to convert Alcatraz back into a high security prison ... which would also impact San Francisco.

"Now there's talk of a new $25 dollar bill..."

That would be the new (talked about) $250 dollar bill.

"My usual reaction would be to say , “it will never happen”. I’ve had to drop that as my automatic response as so many things I thought would never happen have incredibly happened."

Too damn many of "it will never happen" does happen in this timeline.

Another round of massive lawsuits. The airlines and states will not do nothing.

$25, $250--I'm posting on a phone and I have cataracts in one eye. And it was the middle of the night. (I have insomnia.)

Either way, if it does happen, it will be as popular as a $100 bill and probably go the way of the $2 bill.

“Note to self - don't forget to take out travel insurance on our upcoming two major vacations”!

I bet insurance companies would find a way to not cover it!

Likely to be about as popular as a gallon of gas costing $5, or the proposed $250 banknote which could replace the $100 banknote due to inflation.

I occasionally check the US news while traveling in Europe. That was enough of a dose for today - whew!

World Cup kick off in 13 days 8 hours 54 minutes (and counting). What could possibly go wrong....

Supposedly this action would not happen until after the World Cup.

And I wonder if the desired effect is not only to keep some people out of the country but also to keep some people in the country.

I think we will try to route our flights through Atlanta, Charlotte, and maybe even Cincinnati.

Markwayne "What was we ranked" Mullin

"No, no! Couldn’t happen here!”

― It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis

(I can't quote anything else from that very quotable book without getting this thread shut down)

So when are they moving all the CBP officers to the new locations? Overnight?

Who's paying to beef up these 'new' airports' in terminal infrastructures? Baggage handlers? Gate agents? Gas tank storage??