WWTBAM Bored

Southwest Airline attendent questioned mother about whether kid was hers because their colors didn't match

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... rove-mixed

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b0e ... b2aa58eda6

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr- ... 9ea40f14d9

2nd article does say "lap-children" do require documentation that they're under 2.

And international destinations require documentation. But this wasn't int'l flight.

The airlines *do* look out for kids who might be being trafficked; you'd think traffickers would avoid the "unmatched color" clue by, well, matching colors

ghostjmf wrote:
The airlines *do* look out for kids who might be being trafficked; you'd think traffickers would avoid the "unmatched color" clue by, well, matching colors

If they didn't before, they will now.

Hard to say if the SW employee was out of line. It sounds like he/she may have been, but also this women sounds like she may have a chip on her shoulder and like many see racism in places it just isn't.

BackInTex wrote:Hard to say if the SW employee was out of line. It sounds like he/she may have been, but also this women sounds like she may have a chip on her shoulder and like many see racism in places it just isn't.

I don't see how anyone couldn't see racism.

All those Caucasian parents of adopted Asian kids probably don't get stopped by the airlines. And what about "blended families" where the parent on the plane is not related to the kid other than by marriage to kid's biological parent.

Should these parents be carrying documentation? They should, but probably don't feel they need to.

For those who haven't followed the links, children under 2 need documentation that gives their birth date, so that they can ride free on a lap (that's probably not enforced unless the kid is huge) not necessarily their parentage.

ghostjmf wrote:All those Caucasian parents of adopted Asian kids probably don't get stopped by the airlines. And what about "blended families" where the parent on the plane is not related to the kid other than by marriage to kid's biological parent.

Should these parents be carrying documentation? They should, but probably don't feel they need to.

For those who haven't followed the links, children under 2 need documentation that gives their birth date, so that they can ride free on a lap (that's probably not enforced unless the kid is huge) not necessarily their parentage.

Some places (Mexico for example) require kids traveling with one parent to bring a permission letter from the other parent. They don't want to find themselves in the middle of a custody fight. The rule applies to all races.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Hard to say if the SW employee was out of line. It sounds like he/she may have been, but also this women sounds like she may have a chip on her shoulder and like many see racism in places it just isn't.

I don't see how anyone couldn't see racism.

That's because you don't think.

ghostjmf wrote:All those Caucasian parents of adopted Asian kids probably don't get stopped by the airlines. And what about "blended families" where the parent on the plane is not related to the kid other than by marriage to kid's biological parent.

Should these parents be carrying documentation? They should, but probably don't feel they need to.

For those who haven't followed the links, children under 2 need documentation that gives their birth date, so that they can ride free on a lap (that's probably not enforced unless the kid is huge) not necessarily their parentage.

Not sure if this counts as similar for purposes of Ghost's comments above.

Because my son is attending a high school theatre event this week at our local performing arts center, maybe 5 minutes from my work, I had him come to work with me this morning before he showed up to his event. Per security procedures, minor children of employees are not required to go through the metal detector or be issued a visitor badge. My son was initially stopped by guards at detector, but only because they did not think that he was under 18. (Solid, mature-looking lad that he is.) Then, at the security desk, another guard demanded that he get a badge. I asked him politely if there was a change in policy, as none of my kids ever were required to wear a badge when they came to work with me. I was told that he did. Initially, I thought that it was because he looks older than 18, so I said that he was only 17. After some expressions of disbelief, the guard said that the age only applies for children of employees. When I said that he was my son, I got a stuttered, "Well, you never told me."

Wasn't a big deal to us, but certainly is the type of situation that you hear others blow up into a bigger deal.

Appa23 wrote: Wasn't a big deal to us, but certainly is the type of situation that you hear others blow up into a bigger deal.

Of course, then you have things like this:

State Rep. Emilia Sykes was walking to work in the Ohio Statehouse last year with a fellow lawmaker when she was stopped by security. Officers needed to search her bag, she was told.
Sykes is serving her third year as a Democratic state representative from Akron. She is also a 32-year-old black woman. Her colleague, who was not searched, is a 65-year-old white man who has served in the Legislature for many years.

Sykes said she questioned why her bag needed to be searched when that wasn't protocol. Lawmakers only need a badge to gain access to the Statehouse or the nearby Riffe Center, which houses many lawmakers' offices. Her colleague told the trooper Sykes was a member of the Ohio House. She was told: "You don't look like a legislator." The trooper then clarified: "You look too young."

You might explain this away that she looked "too young" to be a legislator, but does anyone thing a white man of the same age would have been subjected to the same treatment?

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/p ... 659121002/

A cop told me years ago that he and everyone in his cohort had been trained to look for people who "don't fit," whatever the locale is. Those folks are simply more likely to be up to something. I accept that as a useful guide, as long as we are polite about things.

The cops on our light rail, when they get on and start asking to see your passes, ask everyone.

If it's your first offense without a valid pass, they give a warning ticket, which you can use as your pass on your return trip during the next 24 hours. The two times I've seen them write a ticket and collect the fine, they have been extraordinarily polite. Someone has gone to some trouble to get this group trained and organized. The light rail system has been open a decade or so, but the new extension to the university has opened it up to a whole new group of riders (me included) and they are treating it like it's a whole new thing.

I guess what I'm getting at is there is a way to say these things. "I am sure you have a valid pass, but would you mind showing it to me? Thank you." "I know your child has a valid passport, but could I see it anyway? Thank you." If the tone is neutral, and the request comes from a place of protecting people, that should be sufficient.

silverscreenselect wrote:You might explain this away that she looked "too young" to be a legislator

I'd say she looks young enough to be carded.

silverscreenselect wrote:but does anyone think a white man of the same age would have been subjected to the same treatment?

Some men would have been.