Stoker

I guess it's just a matter of viewing how big the "problem" is. To me, people breaking the law to sell Americans something they want (cheap, dependable labor) isn't something worth spending billions of taxpayer dollars trying to fix. Especially when it's not clear that, even if we do spend that money, you'd be able to deter or eliminate illegal immigration. The incentives are just too strong to stop. People illegally crossing the Mexican border already stand a good chance of being raped, murdered, or left for dead in an inhospitable desert. I don't know what more of a deterrent the US can realistically put in place (unless you're talking minefields and machine guns ready to fire, which brings up uncomfortable questions like, "Are we the East Germans?"). It's nice of you to consider what you know is best for the illegal immigrants, in that you really don't want them exploited, but I think the individuals making those decisions are probably better equipped to make that decision for themselves, than you are. I get the appeal of the law and order argument, but the question is then, if our borders were open now (as they historically were for the first 300-ish years of our existence on this continent), would you be arguing for them to be closed/restricted? If yes, then it's not really a law and order argument you're making, it's an anti-market one. As for your points about this being different than 1907, the welfare state is not going to be harmed by young, productive people who have lots of kids coming in to the country. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the demographic challenges the current system faces. As for your other point... people should be excluded from the American dream because someone said mean things?

Definitely don't need it prior to UPT, even. I mean, I'm here, anyways, with a rapidly approaching start date, and I still don't have mine.

1. AFAIK we already have fences/walls/rivers in every urban area. The unfenced areas tend to be incredibly rough, desolate terrain. If a fifty mile walk through the Chihuahuan Desert doesn't deter a border crossing, a small fence probably isn't going to, either. 2. What are military patrols going to accomplish that 20,000 sworn Border Patrol agents aren't doing already? Illegal border crossings are at a 50 year low as it is. Seems like a good way to degrade military readiness. 3. Expedited how? And, sure, that makes sense, but seems extremely expensive. 4. We sort of already have this with E-verify (varies state to state), but absent a massive increase in enforcement apparatus you aren't going to see much of a change. All E-verify did was ensure that illegal immigrants got a fake identity before going to work. It's going to take a rare US Attorney who wants to waste his time proving that an employer knew his employees weren't legal. 5. Seems expensive, and again, you're hurting military readiness to accomplish a law enforcement goal. 6. Just seems like nativism. We allowed about the same number of legal immigrants in last year as we did in 1907, when the population was less than a third what it is now. And somehow we managed to assimilate them. Reducing legal immigration is just about the one surefire way to increase illegal immigration. Basically, most of the things you mentioned might reduce illegal immigration somewhat, but at a huge cost. What's the point? Illegal immigrants only come here because people want to hire them. If you want drastically more expensive housing and food, and pay for it with higher taxes to boot, go for it, I guess.

Doesn't hurt to apply, but my guess is that fighter units are going to be more stringent on age waivers than transport/tanker squadrons. They have a ton of candidates already, so why go through the work? But hey, what are they gonna do, not hire you? For seasoning days, right now the Reserves have ~6 months of active orders once you get to your squadron, full time, and then at that point they'll offer you a GS-9 Air Reserve Technician position (grade increasing as you gain hours). Depending on where you live this can be a good deal, but for the NYC area it's like a $10k paycut from O-1 pay. I'm thinking of not taking the ART position and just volunteering for as many deployments/trips as I can once qualified, then enjoying the "vacations" in between orders.

36 is definitely within the range to get an age waiver these days, and the rest of your info looks good enough. Luckily for you there's a ton of units within a reasonable commute to NY, though many are going to want you to be full-time for a while (if you show up the interview acting like you'll finish training then immediately go to one weekend a month, two weeks a year, it might not be received positively). I wonder if you might have luck with the Guard HH-60 squadron in Long Island. Start putting in applications everywhere you'd reasonably want to work, though, because you aren't getting any younger.

For anyone showing up who plans on staying in the dorms, the manager tells you it's a twin XL mattress, but it's really a full XL (53x80). Just in case you want to order the right size sheets/mattress topper.

Hey, three minutes of hip rotations followed by six laps around a track (extra points for dodging the forty cadets on profile walking around!), with zero time to stretch after, was more than enough PT for me. :) Seriously though, the PT is, mostly, a joke. Of course, when we had a cadet break his ankle the very first PT session we were allowed to do self-led PT, it makes sense why they make you color within the lines until the PFA. If you're truly serious about your PT, after the first couple weeks you can hit the gym in the time between reveille and breakfast, when no one is there.

I haven't actually got the check yet, but my orders for OTS listed $540 in per diem. There's also talk about the DFAC not subtracting the full amount of our BAS. We'll see on payday. YMMV.

I asked for my base because I'm going unaccompanied, and Columbus would put me within driving distance of my spouse on the weekends. Others who asked for certain bases based on, for example, their parent having trained there back in the day, weren't so lucky.

For Reserve, you'll get them at inprocessing with the 340th about a month before OTS. Some people got theirs earlier by calling and asking nicely, I didn't have any luck. They seem to be pretty good about getting you the UPT base you want if you have a legit reason.

"grouping minority pilot trainees together at flight school" uhh, what? I thought Truman nixed that idea back in 1948.

If you're certain you're disqualified now, then you might as well start the Lasik ball rolling, because you're definitely going to have to go back to Wright Pat after you get the surgery.

Yeah, they made it clear in the briefing the 340th gave us that they couldn't force you to do the TDART deal. And, there's always the possibility of it being scrapped for an AGR gig by the time you graduate.

Wouldn't be the first time the 340th told people one thing and did another, probably won't be the last.

For Reserves, the squadron in charge of the training pipeline told me it was having earned your PPL within the past three years (i.e. presumably if I had earned mine five years ago and not flown significantly since I'd have to go to IFT).

I'm at OTS right now, at least half the class is prior enlisted. Not sure what the numbers are like for applicants though, there could be a ton more prior-Es applying, making the process more competitive for them. There's at least one 40 year old prior-E here, so it's not impossible. Just difficult, and you're gambling an enlistment on everything lining up perfectly for you.

Yeah, GS-9 is not super exciting. Once I finish the training pipeline I'm looking at an $8,000 effective paycut going from O-1, <2 years, to GS-9. More, if what I've heard is true about having to take local residency while an ART and I lose my current no-income-tax-state residency. It's even worse when comparing O-2, >2 years, something like $20k difference. Guess it's a nice incentive to volunteer for lots of trips and deployments early on?

Rush squadrons, don't be a tool, and you should easily get picked up by a tanker / transport squadron. Some might not want to do age waivers, but I'm guessing most will.

Eh, I'd rather have ~$1200 a month tax free (collecting based on my HOR rate) and a small studio apartment, than a house and no money.

From the 340th FTG during inprocessing at Randolph a few weeks ago. Due to being Reserve and having a spouse and lease elsewhere. I know it seems contrary to the what the regs say, but they were firm that it would be allowed.

Good to know, just making sure. I'm told that I can live in the UOQ and collect full BAH, so it's not a matter of renting a room off base to save money. Weekend trips are definitely planned, but I'm operating on the assumption that there will be times when it would be nice to see each other but I won't have the time to get away.

At the risk of deviating from transport-related questions here, what's the current situation for overnight visitors in the UOQs at Columbus? I'm married, planning on doing UPT unaccompanied, and am told that I'll be able to collect BAH while in the UOQ (since I'm a Reservist with a lease elsewhere), but I'd prefer my spouse be able to visit on the occasional weekend. Seems like it's prohibited by the AFI unless otherwise authorized. Is it allowed (officially or otherwise), or should I just expect to spring for an off-base hotel when she visits?

The very first line he caveats that it's an unfounded theory with no evidence. Not much onus for a citation after that.

I don't think it's a consideration. They know that a certain percentage of selects are going to not end up going to OTS/UPT for medical or other reasons. I'm not even sure they'll send you to get your FC1 until board selected, I'm a little hazy on it but for me the ball didn't start rolling until after.

You shouldnt wait (why would you?), but you only need to have MEPS cleared to make the board.