>A service that only benefits travelers shouldn't be coming out of the general tax revenue funds.
I'd argue this point - while I hate borders as a concept, I think the idea is that taxpayers benefit somehow from having border control. National security / economy reasons. What would stop an airport from saying "it's our responsibility? Ok, we hired a bum off the street, he can't read but whatever" and greenlighting everyone going through?
Or, if the argument is "it's government-run, but the aiprot pays for it," I don't know, it seems like it leaves open too wide a door for corruption.
> Or, if the argument is "it's government-run, but the aiprot pays for it," I don't know, it seems like it leaves open too wide a door for corruption.
I would assume there are various things in US that private companies are required to buy from government (e.g. licenses that might include inspections for things like drugs or x-ray devices) and I would at least hope that corruption isn't that rampart there.
I'd argue this point - while I hate borders as a concept, I think the idea is that taxpayers benefit somehow from having border control. National security / economy reasons. What would stop an airport from saying "it's our responsibility? Ok, we hired a bum off the street, he can't read but whatever" and greenlighting everyone going through?
Or, if the argument is "it's government-run, but the aiprot pays for it," I don't know, it seems like it leaves open too wide a door for corruption.