Slashdot Mirror


U.S. to Require Passport To Re-Enter Country

The Hobo writes "The CBC is reporting that starting in 2007, most Canadians will require a passport to cross into the United States and by 2008 Americans who crossed freely into Canada will be unable to return to the United States without a passport. The tougher new rules still allow Canadians to cross without being fingerprinted, but every person from any other country will be required to submit to fingerprinting." From the article: "Currently, Canadians and Americans are able to enter the United States with little more identification than a driver's licence or a birth certificate, though a passport has sometimes made it simpler to satisfy immigration officers at the border."

1,223 comments

  1. Mexico, Eh? by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > Currently, Canadians and Americans are able to enter the United States with little more identification than a driver's licence or a birth certificate, though a passport has sometimes made it simpler to satisfy immigration officers at the border.

    What's the big deal? Canadians and Americans still don't need passports to get home, nor do they need to worry about fingerprinting.

    If you're an American without a passport, just come back through California, Mexico, and Arizona. The desert's hot, you'll pick up lots of dust, and after a few days' hiking, you'll have picked up a nice Mexican tan. Se Habla Espanol! You're in!

    If you're a Canadian without a passport, remember that you're indistinguishable from the American as long as you remember to pronounce it "owwwwt" (like you stubbed your toe), instead of "oot" (like if you're going oot and aboot), and if you can pretend that Budweiser is beer for a few days. Grab a six-pack of Bud for your American friend and follow him across the desert. Then take a US domestic flight (for which no passport is required) to New York State. Go to the Six Nations Reserve and offer to haul some smokes 'n' booze in across the St. Lawrence. If it's winter, you can even walk home, eh?

    Or remotely sniff the RFID off some other poor schlub and just use his passport.

    Seriously, what's the big deal? Don't have a passport, go to Mexico, eh? :)

    1. Re:Mexico, Eh? by sachmet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You didn't read the article, did you? "And by 2008, most Americans who visit Canada won't be able to re-enter their country without a passport." You sure *will* need a passport to come home. I don't know what will happen if you don't have it, but you can bet it won't be pleasant or speedy.

    2. Re:Mexico, Eh? by schon · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you're an American without a passport, just come back through California, Mexico, and Arizona.

      Yes, because these states all share a border with Canada, right?

      I think you might wanna brush up on your geography a little.

    3. Re:Mexico, Eh? by camkind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But can a country deny entry to one of its own citizens? I can see US customs detaining US citizens for drug/weapon/not declaring duty offences, but actually denying an American citizen the right to enter their own country?

    4. Re:Mexico, Eh? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I dunno if they do share the border but the ilegal aliens seem to fly down and drop passenger of there easily enough. I guess thats the cons of being from outerspace. you cannot distinguish between borders. you just goto a certain area that looks good.

      This brings up another question. do ilegal aliens liek california, new mexica and ariziona because the landscapoe reminds them of home? or is it because all our space movies suggest the landscape reminds us of thier home?

    5. Re:Mexico, Eh? by WaterBreath · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, if you haven't got an American passport, who's to say you're an American citizen?

      The idea is that they will no longer accept your claim to be an American citizen unless you have a passport. If you can produce such, you've satsified the requirement, and they've got no reason to prevent your entry.

    6. Re:Mexico, Eh? by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      The point of a passport is to prove your citizenship. So how do you propose to prove your citzenship without one?

      Till now they have been accepting birth certificates/DLs this is simply a change in the docs they will accept. Well they are selling it as a change in the docs. If you think about ID in the context of a web of trust you quickly come to the conclusion that *all* ID is useless.

      But the point is that you have to have some way of proving it. So what would you use besides a passport? I'm wiling to bet it is just as useless as proof of citizenship as a passport.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    7. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Mr.Progressive · · Score: 0, Troll
      If you're an American without a passport...

      Kinda redundant, eh?

      /I keed

      --
      Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
    8. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never tried to argue with an immigration official. They will not only deny you the right to enter your own country, they will cavity search you for complaining about it.

    9. Re:Mexico, Eh? by TheViffer · · Score: 1

      Dude .. man .. pay attention .. hop into the Pacific and swim around. Sheez.

      So what does all this do to the International Peace Gardens? Is this now considered a military only neutral zone?

      --
      -- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
    10. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad someone called this guy on it. What a stupid post -- just go through Mexico? Dude my IQ drops just glancing at your text.

    11. Re:Mexico, Eh? by lelitsch · · Score: 1, Funny

      According to President Bush, Arizona DOES have a border with Canada. "But we've got a big border in Texas, with Mexico, obviously -- and we've got a big border with Canada -- Arizona is affected."

    12. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't know what will happen if you don't have it, but you can bet it won't be pleasant or speedy.

      It depends. Do you consider a "cavity search" to be "pleasant" and "speedy"?

    13. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mexico is a state now?

      cool!

    14. Re:Mexico, Eh? by rishistar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shopping differences in culture....

      Brits: Shop at home and have goods imported because they live on an island.

      Aussies: Shop at home and have goods imported because they live on an island.

      Americans: Cross the southern border for cheap shopping, gas, & liquor in a backwards country.

      Canadians: Cross the southern border for cheap shopping, gas, & liquor in a backwards country.

      --
      Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
    15. Re:Mexico, Eh? by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 1
      My driver's license isn't good enough?

      Oh, wait, the U.S. government is thinking of invalidating that, too.

    16. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can go to the border with Mexico and ask to the custom:
      " Excuse me, I am trying to get to Canada, do you know which way should I go ? "
      and that will automatically qualify you as being an American.

    17. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      f you're a Canadian without a passport, remember that you're indistinguishable from the American as long as you remember to pronounce it "owwwwt" (like you stubbed your toe), instead of "oot" (like if you're going oot and aboot),

      Where on earth did this come from? Canadians pronounce "about" the same way Americans do (that is, if the American media is any indicator of how you people pronounce words).

      Or is it that Americans are so out of touch with the rest of the world that they regularly confuse Canada with Scotland?

    18. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I guess my birth certificate proves nothing then. That's ok guys. I not going back anytime soon, unless there's a death in the family. Even then I might request that they move the funeral down here. I might miss your billiard table smooth roads an' all, but the weather's better here. So I'll stay away. Just do me a favor. Stay the hell away from me, too. Damn, I wish the world had the balls to turn their back on you bastards.

    19. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you haven't got an American passport, who's to say you're an American citizen?

      The idea is that they will no longer accept your claim to be an American citizen unless you have a passport


      There are other documents that prove you're a US citizen, like a birth certificate or naturalization certificate.

    20. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So if your papers aren't "in order", you're not a Real American (TM). Sounds like Fatherland Defense. Show us your papers, please.

    21. Re:Mexico, Eh? by WaterBreath · · Score: 0, Troll
      So I guess my birth certificate proves nothing then.

      Sigh. I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to this....

      1) Does your birth certificate have an up-to-date photo of you on it? Mine doesn't, and I'd guess if yours does, it's a fake. Which means you need some other form of photo ID to verify that the certificate is actually yours... Hmmm... Oh, hey, I just happen to have a passport with a recent photo on it! Oh, and it has my birthdate, and my name too, just like my birth certificate does. And it's harder to fake than a driver's license too!

      2) I don't know about you, but I've carried my passport on my person far more often than I have my birth certificate.

      If you're not smart enough to see that, then don't worry, we don't want you to come back.

    22. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they can't deny entry to a citizen, but how the hell do you prove that you are a citizen without documentation?

    23. Re:Mexico, Eh? by dadragon · · Score: 1

      Where on earth did this come from? Canadians pronounce "about" the same way Americans do (that is, if the American media is any indicator of how you people pronounce words).

      It depends on where in Canada you're talking about.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    24. Re:Mexico, Eh? by WaterBreath · · Score: 0, Redundant
      There are other documents that prove you're a US citizen, like a birth certificate or naturalization certificate.

      Well, until they start putting up-to-date photos on those, you're going to have to produce a valid, reliable, photo ID in addition, to prove that it's your birth certificate, and not stolen from someone else. So, guess what, you need to have more than that.

      And since state ID or driver's licenses are so easy to fake and so different between states, they're going to require passports.

    25. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It depends on where in Canada you're talking about.

      I'd like to know where, in Canada, people speak that way.




      ("In Edinburgh, of course!")

    26. Re:Mexico, Eh? by FlopEJoe · · Score: 1

      So who in the passport department came out with this one? Is this just a money making/job retaining bid?

    27. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Passports are easy to deny for bogus reasons.

      It happened to Martin Luther King.

      Annoy the wrong people (e.g. the State Department) and you lose your passport and your ability to go to travel to most countries.

      Now Canada and Mexico will be off-limits too. For some people in the border regions, traveling to those countries regularly is a way of live (e.g. many in San Diego, etc).

      The passport is treated as a privilege, and thus travel is too. One that can be revoked even if you committed no crime,

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    28. Re:Mexico, Eh? by SquadBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which has always been true of every piece of government issued ID.

      Your point was?

      All I'm saying is that all ID is worthless so it might as well be a passport as any other piece of ID. Or not. Either way if the government wants to fuck you they will.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    29. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1
      Americans: Cross the southern border for cheap shopping, gas, & liquor in a backwards country.

      Canadians: Cross the southern border for cheap shopping, gas, & liquor in a backwards country.

      I think you got those messed up. We used to cross into Canada for cheap shopping and liquor since the Canadian dollar was so weak against the American dollar. No so much these days unfortunately. Plus duty free stores!!

    30. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Erioll · · Score: 1
      I'd like to know where, in Canada, people speak that way

      So would I. You'd think that their only ideas on how Canadians speak comes from Southpark or something.

      Just so you know, in most places in the US, if you are talking to a Canadian, and they restrain themselves from saying "eh" too much (we really do say that too much. Listen to your own converstations sometimes and you might be shocked), then we're basically indistinguishable. You'd never know we're not from somewhere in the states.
    31. Re:Mexico, Eh? by muffen · · Score: 1

      "Americans want to rule the world, the only problem is that they can't find it!"

      Seriously though, this is the case for most other countries already... if you don't have a passport you aint getting in... don't see what the big deal is, but then again, I'm not american.

      I just hope that the rest of the world starts treating American visitors the same way we are treated when coming to the states... stand in a long queue (35+ min to get to through the queue), answer a bunch of really stupid question, have your picture and fingerprint taken.

      Having my picture and fingerprints taken doesn't bother me, but I do believe that Americans coming to Europe should be treated the same way.

    32. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Eternally+optimistic · · Score: 1

      Yes, I hear the border between California and the USA is not very well defended.

      --
      What keeps me going is my inertia.
    33. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. On my way through BC and the Yukon territory, I met more people that sounded like they can straight out of the movie "Strange Brew" than I though possible. "What aboot a brooskie eh?"

    34. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Hey, there's a New Mexico.
      </homer>

    35. Re:Mexico, Eh? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      It is all about control. USSR was great at this sort of thing, and yet, a quick trip with an Albanian smuggler could usually get you where you wanted to go and without all the trenchcoats and funny accents that went with Checkpoint Charlie. America needs to learn a leason or two about freedom from Eastern Europeans... May I see your Papers Please? - Tyranny, it isn't just for breakfast anymore

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    36. Re:Mexico, Eh? by hchaos · · Score: 1
      You didn't read the article, did you? "And by 2008, most Americans who visit Canada won't be able to re-enter their country without a passport." You sure *will* need a passport to come home. I don't know what will happen if you don't have it, but you can bet it won't be pleasant or speedy.

      Wow, not only did the joke go over your head, but the heads of 3 moderators as well!

      You didn't read the post, did you? You only need a passport if the border agents know that you are entering the country!

    37. Re:Mexico, Eh? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think his point was that they are restricting the rights of their own citizens to travel outside their borders. As in, you're only allowed to leave if we give you permission to leave. One of those things that they used to point the finger at Iraq about. One of those totalitarian things, you dig?

      God damn that country scares me. Every day they look more and more like Germany in the 30s. Constant surveillance of its citizenry, living in a nice comfy womb of propaganda, secrets, secret police, imprisoning people without trial or accountability, ever increasing unification between the corporations and the goverment, the ever increasing religious rhetoric of the leadership, government rewriting science, I mean fuck. They're scary enough without having all the worlds nukes and a president that can't string his words together.

      And the proud American moderators will bring this offensive post to -1 in a heartbeat.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    38. Re:Mexico, Eh? by mhore · · Score: 1
      But can a country deny entry to one of its own citizens? I can see US customs detaining US citizens for drug/weapon/not declaring duty offences, but actually denying an American citizen the right to enter their own country?

      I think you'll find that a country can do whatever it pleases. Maybe not legally... but they can pretty much do whatever they want. If you're American, then PROVE it will be their response. I am a Canadian... and I wouldn't have been admitted to Canada when I drove back a few years ago if I hadn't have had my birth certificate on me (this was before I had a passport). They were very skeptical that I was Canadian. Probably stemmed from my US license plates and US address, but that's not the point.

      I am still Canadian and was almost refused. But... I can't really see this as a bad thing, necessarily. Passports are handy.

      Mike.

      --

      Mmmm......sacrelicious.

    39. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take off!

      Eh!

    40. Re:Mexico, Eh? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Funny. I always go north to Canada for cheap shopping.

      Are you, say, one of those people who doesn't live in a state bordering Canada?

    41. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Office of Homeland Perversity^M^M^M^M^M^M^M^M^M^MSecurity has determined that 1. Canadians supporting northern border states by cross border shopping is wrong wrong wrong!!! Canadians must not support American business in that way. Further 2. Canadians are unwelcome as tourists. Don't allow them to spend tourism dollars in the U.S.!!! To ensure you ruin their holidays, put a large contingent of anal-retentive hard-ass border agents at the border, have them detain families with young children/elderly along with everyone else. Be sure to scare/yell at the children, make the elderly stand in the hot sun for hours if possible. Make them spend their tourism money at home!! 3. Ensure trade show/convention/business travelers have a difficult time entering the U.S. Shut the borders and keep that business out!!! 4. Make sure your own citizens have a difficult time re-entering the U.S. If they complain that they have medical problems and 'need to get home for the heart medicine', send 'em to Gintmo. That'll learn 'em! With luck, we can 'accidently' kill three times as many returning nationals as were killed in 9/11, every year. We have to instill our 'attack-dog' mentality into all of these people somehow. These goals can be achieved by slowly constricting the border.

    42. Re:Mexico, Eh? by adsl · · Score: 1

      Absolutely the USA does deny entry to its own citizens w/o a passport. A friend of mine was born in NYC and his laft left and went back to Ireland when he was 10 days old. Consequently he never had a US Passport, he had an Irish Passport. At age 50 he flew to NYC and was denied entry and put on the first plane back to London (where he embarked from). The reason given was that as he was a US Citizen (by birth) he MUST enter the USA with an American Passport. So he had to front up at the American embassy in the UK and apply for a US Passport, for the first time in his life. They granted the Passport and back he flew to the USA and received the "Welcome home, Sir".

    43. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Troll


      Hell, some years ago I had my wallet stolen and I tried to use my birth certificate to get some new ID. I went down to the INS because everybody was denying me the ability to apply for a job, and I was told that since this birth certificate was not "certified" by the state of Connecticut (it was my birth hospital certificate), I was technically not a US citizen and had not right to work in the United States!

      Despite having been born in the US (of parents who themselves were born in the US going back generations), and despite having used that birth certificate to get into the US Army and be sent overseas to shoot people, that birth certificate was not good enough for our friendly Federal government types (or the asshole corporate human resources types who are required to demand ID before they can hire you.)

      So don't be surprised if, one of these days, the Feds decide that you aren't a citizen because you slopped coffee on your "certified" birth certificate, or your driver's license, or your implanted RFID, or whatever else these fuckheads come up with to terrorize the citizenry.

      And don't be surprised if you end up in some hot place where vicious dogs and more vicious guards are used to keep you "under control" while they decide if you're even human enough to have any so-called "civil rights".

      You're in a totalitarian state now, homes, and don't you forget it.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    44. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      I've never heard a state gov't denying an ID card to those that can't get a driver's license.

      It would be considered enough of a hardship to deny an ID card (almost impossible to use credit cards, checks, get on airplanes, heck you can get arrested and convicted for not showing ID to any officer that asks) that there would be an uproar about it, especially if no crime was committed.

      Passports are treated as a luxury, as is int'l travel.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    45. Re:Mexico, Eh? by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      As in, you're only allowed to leave if we give you permission to leave.

      Where the fark did you get that from? Anyone one who wants to leave can exit immediately, no questions asked, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. All they're saying is, if you want to come back, please have this standard piece of international identification. Is that really so much to ask?

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    46. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try leaving the country then, amliebsch. Questions are asked by any country you try to go to. And if you don't satisfy them, they put you on a plane back to the US. Then you end up living in the airport for years.

    47. Re:Mexico, Eh? by rho · · Score: 1

      I tell you, these rah-rah-Canada jokes never get old.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    48. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 1

      In my experience the prices on things like jeans and shoes is a lot cheaper in Northern NY then it is in Southern Quebec.

    49. Re:Mexico, Eh? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      My experience was the opposite when I lived in Northern Minnesota. But then, shopping for anything in Duluth.....

    50. Re:Mexico, Eh? by ddavis539 · · Score: 1

      Um, you didn't read his response, did you? The passport check will only take place at border entry ports. There are hundreds of miles of unpatrolled border with Canada and Mexico with a barrier not more sophisticated than a ditch or a barb wire fence.

      It seems ludicrious that the government would create more hardships for citizens, while it continues to offer incentives in the form of amnesties for current and future illegal immigrants. With an estimated 20 Million illegal immigrants currently in the United States, politicians are nuts to think that additional cheap labor is needed.

    51. Re:Mexico, Eh? by DoninIN · · Score: 1

      While I'm aware this comment is a +5 funny. It's the truest thing I've read in this whole thread. What the bad word is the point in hassling legitimate American Citizens, in order to find the one Tourist(Bush pronounciation) that's dumb enough to try to come through Canada, when we're letting literally millions of people in through the southern border without even seriously pretending to care about their entry? The US goverment has it's priorities so far out of touch with reality it's stunning. Never mind the *Billions* we spent on bomb detection for airlin safety, after the attack on Septemeber eleventh 2001, when terrorist didn't attack the USA with any bombs at all. Good call Department of Homeland Security.

    52. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some may say that that is why the 2nd Amdendment is there...

    53. Re:Mexico, Eh? by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      If you're an American without a passport, just come back through California, Mexico, and Arizona.

      Yes, because these states all share a border with Canada, right?

      Maybe you should brush up on your geography too. Mexico isn't a state.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    54. Re:Mexico, Eh? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      The other posts have a good point, but there's something they're missing.

      The right to travel within the US is a right, one that can't be revoked without due process.

      If you are a US citizen, you have the right to enter the US, period, if you show up at the border or fly in at an airport. (Whether you are allowed on the plane being an interesting side note. John Gilmore has a case going to the Surpreme Court partially about that very issue.)

      However, a US passport can be revoked, on no grounds at all except the State Department doesn't like you. Yes, yes, you can contest it in court, and you might get your passport back...five years later. But they don't have to show you've commited a crime, or are even a threat, they just have to have some actual reason to not want you in other countries.

      This hasn't been a legal issue, because US passports used to be letters of reference to other countries only. Yes, almost everyone who went to non-NAFTA countries had to have them already, so it was an easy way to prove you were a citizen...but lack of them did not prove you were not, even if you were coming from a place that wouldn't have allowed you in without one.

      And if the US was denying you a passport for political reasons, you could always just get the other country's okay to visit, and go without the US's permission, and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it. They had to let you out (Although getting out via plane could be hard.), and they had to let you back in.

      But not, the government is asserting it has the right to keep out any US cizitens it doesn't like. Which it does not have. Exile is not even currently a legal punishment in this country, and even if it was, it would require due process. (I'm not saying exile would be illegal, I'm just saying it's not currently the punishment for any crime. (Actually, exile would only be a legal punishment under Federal law...states can't deny entry to other US citizens, that's in the Constitution somewhere, although it's not stated exactly that way.))

      It doesn't matter that you (at this point in time) have to leave the US voluntarily to end up exiled. That's like the government saying 'people wearing green shirts don't have freedom of speech'. It doesn't matter that wearing a green shirt is a choice and people can choose not to do that, free speech is a right.

      And there's the fun question: What if they revoke my passport while I'm out of the country?

      Here's another fun question: What if they (quite legally) arrest me on some silly charge, haul me to the border, push me across, and refuse to let me back in? Before you say 'they wouldn't do that', need I remind you of the little operation they're running in Cuba so they can deny people access to US courts? Pushing someone into Canada is child's play compared to that.

      There's a reason the right to travel freely in this country is there. Neither states nor the Fed can deny entry to any citizen of the US.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    55. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      You didn't read his post, eh? IT WAS A JOKE! It was all about how to get back into your own country through the usual "illegal" channels that are used daily by thousands of people, anyway...

    56. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Simonetta · · Score: 1

      The comment that Canadians speak much the same as Americans is quite true, for most of Canada.

      In other parts of Canada, on parle tres different de les Americains. eh?

      Canada is one country and two nations.

    57. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that really so much to ask?

      Hell no. And in five years, when we decide to revoke the passports of known (or suspected) criminals, would that be too much?

      How about 10 years down the road, when anyone disagreeing with the invasion of Saudi Arabia or, hell, Canada, is automatically considered an enemy of the state and the state department revokes their passports?

      Maybe they should just shoot anyone who shows up at the border without one. After all, you can't possibly be a US citizen unless you've got all the right paperwork from those busy little bureaucrats, and anyone else trying to come in must be a terrorist.

    58. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think you meant, "Holmes" as in, you know, Sherlock.

      If you truly believe all the stuff you just wrote why in the world would you voluntarily enlist in the service? You a masochist?

    59. Re:Mexico, Eh? by will_die · · Score: 1

      Using birth certificates for identification is worthless.
      I had/still useing one for my entire life for jobs, previous passports, licenses,etc. Then a few years ago when I went to get a new passport I was told it not an offical birth certificate but one the hospitals gave to the parents. It looked all offcial and everything with stamps and seals but was not issued by the state.
      The reason the passport agent knew was she use to work for that state and was familiar with them, since it fairly common at that time to give them out.
      Been meaning to get an offical birth certificate but not worth the hassle.

    60. Re:Mexico, Eh? by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1
      > and if you can pretend that Budweiser is beer for a few days

      Ack! I'm a Yank and even I can't stomach that piss. Gimme some Yeungling Lager (homebrewed here in PA) or LaBatt Ice from up north instead.

    61. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We Brits often cross the channel for cheap shopping, gas & liquor in a backwards country.

    62. Re:Mexico, Eh? by A.+Lynch · · Score: 1

      God damn that country scares me.

      I'm an American and my government scares me...

      I'm also not proud of my government, and the fact that people actually voted for the Theocracy we have now in place.

      These are some of the darkest days in the history of our country, and we let it happen...

      Very interesting times we live in.

    63. Re:Mexico, Eh? by schon · · Score: 1

      The assumption was New Mexico.

    64. Re:Mexico, Eh? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      They're scary enough without having all the worlds nukes and a president that can't string his words together.

      George Bush also believes in the rapture and judgement day. He believes that the world will end in in a rain of fire and brimstone, but that he and his fellow Christians will be teleported to heaven before it all starts.

      And he has the means to bring this all about...

      THAT is the definition of scary.

    65. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the sad part is your right but most americans are to trusting, to wrapped-up in themsevles, lazy, or dumb to really believe they`ve lost thier country.... much less do anything about it... what a pity.

    66. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, what`s scary is... with all the so-called know-it-all copmputer experts that hang out here. they don`t believe in God! they can debate anything technical but don`t have an answer to what is happening now and how it applies to the future. if you really knew what "666" is about (in the Bible) and took a long hard look at where all the technology and laws are going and needed... to make "666" a reality. that IS the problem. don`t get hung up on the rapture or any other "distraction". trust me, the christians will still be here when "666" happens. pay attention to what Isreal is doing... meaning, when you hear of them rebuilding the temple. time proves all things
      so if

    67. Re:Mexico, Eh? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      they can debate anything technical but don`t have an answer to what is happening now and how it applies to the future

      Neither do the religious types. Their explaination of whats happening now involved creation of the known universe in seven days, the earth being created before the sun, and women came from a spare rib. Oh, and lions and tigers don't need to eat prey when on an ark or following a flood.

      and took a long hard look at where all the technology and laws are going and needed... to make "666" a reality.

      If "666" ever comes around, it will be a religious person driving it, mark my word. Christians believe there will never be peace on earth until everyone is a Christian. And they are willing to kill those who disagree!

      pay attention to what Isreal is doing... meaning, when you hear of them rebuilding the temple.

      Certainally. If we do manage to nuke the world, my money is on Isreal or the USA kicking it off.

    68. Re:Mexico, Eh? by kill+-9+$$ · · Score: 1

      No I think he meant homes (pronouciation HO MEEZ) as in:

      "Me and all my ho-mes are going to White Castle."

      --

      -- A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard
    69. Re:Mexico, Eh? by Ender's+in+use2 · · Score: 1
      You didn't read past the 1st non-quote line of his post, did you?

      He was being 'funny.' I.e.: It's so easy to sneak in across the US/Mexico border that if they won't let you in at the 49th parallel, you can just sneak around to the back door which is unlocked.

      Or at least that's how I read it.

  2. Because passports are never wrong! by sachmet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because, as we all know, passports are never forged. Ever.

    I don't see how we are more "protected" than the current system.

    1. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by garcia · · Score: 3, Informative

      I see it has being used when Passports are mandated to include RFID tags. By then, if the lawmakers get their way, cars will have them imbedded in tires to track their movements (of course it's all for the best interests of the USA's citizens and not to fill the coffers of local governments).

      The US will then be able to track the movements of its citizens around the Interstates and across the border. It will then know when you left, when you came back, and where you went after.

      It will all be a part of your little running history.

      Keep RFID tags out of cars, passports, items in stores, etc.

    2. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by surefooted1 · · Score: 1

      That's when you go greyhound or fly. ;-)

    3. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by needacoolnickname · · Score: 1

      Can I introduce you to E-ZPass?

    4. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because we know those methods of travel aren't tracked.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    5. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Anyone want to go in on a new business with me? Shielded card carriers and passport sleeves. I predict it to be a boom market soon. And all we need to invest in is aluminum foil!

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    6. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by stormlead · · Score: 3, Funny

      I never thought I'd see Free Republic cited on Slashdot. All I can say is... ping!

    7. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      cars will have them imbedded in tires to track their movements

      makes sense, putting it in one of the few parts most car users actually know how to change.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    8. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      I can see it now... "Chief! He's stopping to switch cars!" "Good. Stop him while he's swapping the tagged tires!"

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    9. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it?

    10. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Scaba · · Score: 1

      But what if he dresses like a nun and drives a car covered in duckies & bunnies?

    11. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My .bash_history says that you are wrong.

    12. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will keep us safe from the terr'rists because, as we all know, terrorists will always use their own vehicle, and will never stoop to stealing someone else's.

    13. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      A simple measure that could be taken to dramatically improve the security of passports:

      Include on the passport a data chip (no, not RFID!) that can be read. On the chip is the same information as in the passport (name, birthdate, description, etc. and a photo) that has been digitally signed. When passports need to be checked you verify the information against the person standing in front of you, and verify the signature against the appropriate national government provided public key.

      What this means is that each national government can have a set of private keys, and be the unique signing authority for passports of that nation. Having a set of keys is desireable as you want to limit the number of people on any given key so if a key is comprimised only a limited number of people need to renew their passports. If you set passport renewal to 5 years and use large keys you can simply roll people over to new (potentially larger/stronger) keys as the renew their passports, and expire the old keys.

      Is it a perfect system? No. It would make successful forgery an order of magnitude or more difficult. You can't fake a passport without the nation's private key, which presumably they'll keep well guarded. You can't alter an existing passport without invalidating the digital signature. And even if the whole system breaks and all the keys are compromised somehow - at worst you're back to exactly the system we have now because the data chip is merely an extra layer of verification on passports exactly akin to what we have now.

      Jedidiah.

    14. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by chris_eineke · · Score: 1
      Keep RFID tags out of cars, passports, items in stores, etc.

      Wrong. Keep the government out of cars, passports, items in stores, etc.
      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    15. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by G-funk · · Score: 1

      This isn't to protect you. This is to slowly get people used to being fingerprinted, so eventually they can fingerprint everyone in the US

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    16. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by subl33t · · Score: 1

      Passport checking didn't prevent ANY of the 911 terrorists from entering the US. All their passports were valid.

      ***

      This could just be a knee-jerk reaction by the US to the 15% tariffs Canada and the EU are going to slap on US goods until the US Byrd Amendment is repealed.

    17. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by robertjw · · Score: 1

      cars will have them imbedded in tires

      Now wait a minute, how does that work? Thought these things only worked at a very short range. Are they going to be imbedded all the way around the tire so when I run across some kind of sensor it works? Most tires are more than just a few inches across (usually at least 20 inches or so). If the RFID can only be picked up in one spot it won't be very effective, plus the sheer amount of work to aggregate all that data would be monumental.

      Not sure I believe it, but I can still get behind the "Keep RFID tags out of cars, passports, items in stores, etc." idea - just in case.

    18. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bear in mind that the 9/11 terrorists entered the USA under their real names, using real passports and real visas supplied by US Immigrations themselves.

      Now, can you actually identify a terrorist attack that would have been prevented by making passports unforgable?

    19. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind that the 9/11 terrorists entered the USA under their real names, using real passports and real visas supplied by US Immigrations themselves.

      Very true. However, I was simply answering the fact that passports are easy forge - and relatively speaking they are very easy to forge. Whether that stops terrorist attacks is not especially relevant. It's useful for all the things that passports are normally useful for.

      Jedidiah.

    20. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember crypto is about making it economically unfeasible to obtain the secret.

      The problem with your theory is that having some other countries public key would be very valuable to a countries spy agencies. That means the public keys as currently used are worth a few hundreds of dollars but could be worth tens of billions of dollars.

    21. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Don+Negro · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely correct about the intent of these regulations, but I've always thougth that poetry was a concerted effort to point out the non-obvious, rather than to deny the obvious.

      I've seen religions that did the same. Those are the ones I think of as 'good' ones.

      Most of them are shit, though.

      --

      Don Negro
      Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall

    22. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure about this, but who is going to handle passports if not the gov?

    23. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Lihtan · · Score: 1

      Now wait a minute, how does that work? Thought these things only worked at a very short range. Are they going to be imbedded all the way around the tire so when I run across some kind of sensor it works? Most tires are more than just a few inches across (usually at least 20 inches or so).

      The average automobile has a tire circumference of about 6 feet. To ensure reading of an embedded RFID chip, all one has to do is set up a long antenna array buried into the pavement. Make the array 10 - 12 feet long, and you're guaranteed to capture larger commercial and offroad tires at least once in rotation. This process can easily be automated. Time stamping serial numbers won't require any serious amount of storage or processor power.

      --
      Divide by zero hurts my brain.
    24. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · · Score: 1

      Ping? ... Pong!

      --
      I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
    25. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly do you leave the US now, without the knowledge of the US government and the government of the country you are trying to enter?

    26. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, read your passport. It is property of the US government. They let you use it to prove citizenship for travel abroad and re-entry.

    27. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just FYI,

      Cars already are starting to implement RFID for many different features most notably : Tire pressure monitoring systems which will soon be mandated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. http://www.tireindustry.org/government/tpms_commen ts.asp

    28. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by russotto · · Score: 1

      Tyranny, tempered by incompetence.

    29. Re:Because passports are never wrong! by instarx · · Score: 1

      Ubiquitous RFID tags are the greatest threat to individual freedom ever devised.

      When RFID tags become ubiquitous in clothing government agents will be able to easily track anyone's movements and associations by simply placing scanners on city streets and sidewalks. The insidious part is that any known RFID tag "infects" any other tag near it. The Feds will be able to associate anyone you walk down the street with or ride in a car with as a "known associate". When your clothing tags are associated with the tags in your car's tires the government will be able to tell where you drive. But that isn't even necessary - as soon as you get out of your car and walk into a shopping center the government will know where you are because your RFID tags are there.

      Simply by walking through an opposition political rally with a portable logger/scanner agents will be able to identify everyone in the group and their "known associates". Anonymously participating in protest marches will be a thing of the past.

      The potential abuses of RFID tags by a security-minded government are more than can be listed here. There wil be no such thing as anonymity - the government will know EVERYTHING about you including what kind of toothpaste you buy.

      And don't think you will be protected by the shear amount of information collected - any government that can monitor every telephone conversation *on the planet* with Echelon can easily keep track of its citizens.

  3. passport? by swimmar132 · · Score: 1

    What if I lose it?

    1. Re:passport? by jdreed1024 · · Score: 4, Funny
      What if I lose it?

      That could never happen to me, as my voice is my passport. Please verify me.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    2. Re:passport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, I've lost my voice on several occasions.

    3. Re:passport? by eobanb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Then you need to go to the American embassy, and they'll help you re-enter the country. This is true for entry into the US from almost anywhere.

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

    4. Re:passport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh...go to the nearest US consulate and get a new one. Pretty much the same thing that you do now.

    5. Re:passport? by lurch_mojoff · · Score: 1

      Have you seen this good movie called "The Terminal".

      Well, if you lose your US passport in Canada, you'll feel like Tom Hanks' character is a lucky son of a b...

      You get my drift.

    6. Re:passport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What if I lose it?

      I always travel with my expired passport, spare pictures, notarized birth certificate and a copy of my current passport kept separate from my passport. If I lose my passport, the embassy will have no trouble getting me a new one. Since travel is part of my job, it's part of my job to make sure nothing goes wrong.

    7. Re:passport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      But how can you show your passport . . . if you are unable to speak?

    8. Re:passport? by thenextpresident · · Score: 1

      You go to the American embassy.

      --
      Jason Lotito
    9. Re:passport? by eli173 · · Score: 1
      But how can you show your passport . . . if you are unable to speak?

      Why, use the tape recorder, of course!
      (Be sure to use it on the low speed, they might have added a check for someone talking at 2x speed... now that everyone else has seen Sneakers.)
    10. Re:passport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what? /. ran out of Matrix fans to mod the parent up? Excuse me while I go outside to watch the end of the world.

    11. Re:passport? by Zeebs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I worked answering the phones for the US Consulate in Toronto for a summer, and it happens all the time. I got lots of calls fom people in just such situations. Hell up to last year anyway lots of you guys were comming into Canada without even bringing any photo ID. I mean thats just sad right? Well I digress... If you lose what ever documentation you needed to get back into the US go to the consulate. If you lost it in the US, report it missing. Very simple.

      --

      Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
    12. Re:passport? by TheViffer · · Score: 0

      Like I would be worried getting back into the USA. I think the entire state of North Dakota has something like 6 posts spanning 280 miles and no fence between the countries. I am sure there are a few section line roads between Canada and the USA and if not, I can make one through some poor farmers wheat field.

      Montana, that is even worse. Between the great lakes and the Idaho/Montana border, I could drive the moon through there and probably not even be spotted.

      So tell me again how passports are going to help?

      --
      -- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
    13. Re:passport? by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 1

      So tell me again how passports are going to help?
      Define help. What it will do is keep people scared: "They wouldn't be requiring it if there wasn't a real threat!!! OHNOESWEREDOOMED!!!11eleventy!!"

      The vast majority of people do not think that sort of thing through, they aren't going to see how utterly pointless it is, they're just goign to see that it is being done and - with help from the media - jump to the wrong conclusion.

      It won't help anyone except those who want to keep the population in a state where they don't actually think.

    14. Re:passport? by Misanthropy · · Score: 1

      My sister has lost her passport in a foreign country (not Canada) not once...but twice!
      It was a pain for her to get a replacement so she could come home, but it wasn't too big of a deal.

    15. Re:passport? by sharkey · · Score: 1

      hen you need to go to the American embassy, and they'll
      talk them down to
      .
      .
      .
      a booting.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    16. Re:passport? by centauri · · Score: 1

      Certainly, Dr. Brandes. Welcome to Playtronics. We hope you had a good date last night.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    17. Re:passport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Keep a copy of your passport number somewhere separate.
      2. Try to keep some kind of photo ID handy somewhere separate.
      3. Leave a copy of your birth certificate with a family member who can fax it to the US embassy if possible.
      4. Make sure you have plenty of case to pay for a new passport and photo (in local money, at the exact current exchange rate).

      That way, you too can have that wonder known as a foreign-issued passport. They're only good for 1 year unless renewed (and you might have to renew in person at a passport agency; I know you used to).

      This is called the voice of experience.

    18. Re:passport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, we'll verify you with a good boot-fucking.

      Don't run though, we won't be able to goose-step quickly enough to catch you.

  4. ahem. by eobanb · · Score: 1

    Americans, leave while you still can.

    --

    Take off every sig. For great justice.

    1. Re:ahem. by Dante333 · · Score: 1

      It's not the leaving thats the problem...its the getting back in.

    2. Re:ahem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the point was that today it's still somewhat easy to leave and return, tomorrow will be harder to return, and the day after it will be just as hard to leave as to return. Moving towards a closed society, Soviet America, etc.

  5. What's next? Interstate travel? by Ydna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shouldn't be too long before interstate travel in the US requires a passport. That'll finally put an end to criminals moving to another state to hide from the law.

    --

    "The great thing about multitasking is that several things can go wrong at once." -me

    1. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by kaszeta · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Shouldn't be too long before interstate travel in the US requires a passport.

      Sometimes I think that this might actually happen.

      Consider this: on one of my regular drives, it's not unusual for me to be pulled over, asked for identification, where I was coming from, and where I'm headed to, and if the officer doesn't like my answers (or I decline to answer), I get to wait until they've checked my ID and vehicle information over.

      Seriously, having my US Passport is handy (and I'm about as honky-appearing as they come, I feel sorry for the foreign-appearing folks around here)

      Where does this happen? No, this isn't the desert Southwest. This is Interstate 91 in Vermont, 100 miles from the US-Canada border.

    2. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's modded funny, but it's not really far from the truth.

      Interstate travel in the US already requires full identification, logged permanently by the government -- that is, if you want to travel at a tolerable speed. Unless you're wealthy enough to afford a personal jet, you can't fly without the equivalent of showing a passport. (see freetotravel.org)

      This situation is only getting worse. Even interstate buses and trains now usually require ID for ticket purchases.

    3. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by madmancarman · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Consider this: on one of my regular drives, it's not unusual for me to be pulled over, asked for identification, where I was coming from, and where I'm headed to, and if the officer doesn't like my answers (or I decline to answer), I get to wait until they've checked my ID and vehicle information over.

      Are you sure you're not black, driving through Kentucky? Everyone I've ever seen pulled over on the highway in Kentucky was black.

      --
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
    4. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minor difference - interstate travel is constitutionally protected. International travel is not.

    5. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2, Funny
      ...on one of my regular drives, it's not unusual for me to be pulled over, asked for identification...

      Well, if you'd stop driving 93 MPH this wouldn't happen as much.

      --
      That is all.
    6. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Um, OK... so that's not really about interstate traffic then, is it? Obviously that's about international travel, and concern about who is and who isn't doing it an hour or so from the border. Canada is just as international as Mexico is, and one could argue that it's just as likely a source of smuggling and ne'er-do-wells as south of the border. Extrapolating that anecdote to interstate travel document checking is just a speculative bash, methinks.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by BroadwayBlue · · Score: 1
      Here in Ohio we know who you are.

      Automatic Plate Recognition

    8. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't think the religious sectors would allow somethign like that. they have successfuly fought off a national id and everythign else that they could constru as the mark of the beast. Requiring a passport would be much the same.

      Besides i think the constitution prohibits restrictions in traveling between the sates. I haven't looked at it in a while but if i remeber right, they cannot restrict it unless they find another lop hole like interstate comerce or somthign/

    9. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's what police are supposed to do, and I for one am glad they do it. I'll gladly put up with 1-2 minutes of my time for the officer to discover my car isn't stolen, and I'm not carrying drugs/weapons if he catches the next guy who is. I don't see it as an invasion of any rights or privacy of mine either, if you're thinking that. It's public roads, and I'm glad they're policed properly. I only wish that it would stop there, and not continue onto other things that I fear it's headed for (manditory ID checks, passports state-to-state, etc).

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    10. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could call it... The Interstatriot Act!

    11. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Tiger+Smile · · Score: 1


      I flew from Orlando, FL to NY, NY with my wife and our two kids. We all had to show our passports to travel from one state to the other, on a plane.

      Soon we might have to all show ID at checkpoints. Sometimes between states, and maybe while traveling within a state.

      I'm sure it could never happen, but then again I was sure my 1 and 2 years olds would never have to have a passport to travel.

      --
      -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
    12. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a white car theif I salute your support of the enforcement of the unwritten DWB (driving while black) law. When law enforcement is busy pulling over mostly innocent black drivers, me and my ilk can calmly and without trouble move our ill gotten prizes to chop-shops all the quicker.

    13. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't be too long before interstate travel in the US requires a passport.

      Well, of course you're being sarcastic, but for those that don't get the joke and are actually thinking that this is somehow bad or shocking... why is it alarming to treat traveling to and from Canada any different than, say, France? If anything, the physical ease with which it's done (driving) makes it all the more meaningful to raise the stakes for illegals.

      For what it's worth, I've traveled to and from Canada before... and had my car practically taken apart at the border into Nova Scotia. Just looked the part, I suppose. Oh: that was 15 years ago. Lighten up, everybody.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 2, Funny

      Huh? This is an example of interstate travel passport requirement!

    15. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Yet another reason to go around Ohio. I'm from ND and go to school in VA. I drove through OH on the way here and got a speeding ticket (they kept changing the limit, like 5 times in 2 miles, then it was a 40mph construction zone for 10+ miles, and then it said "resume legal speed" which you couldn't possibly remember; I assumed 75mph and was wrong), and since you must go to court for your second speeding ticket in Ohio in 12 months, I'm going around Ohio through Kentucky when I drive to South Dakota for work this summer. It's actually shorter to go around Ohio than to drive the speed limit through it. :P

    16. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by w9ofa · · Score: 0

      Go build your own highway system then. I'm sure you can come up with the measily trillion or two.

      If you are on public roads, you should be under public scrutiny. There's no fundamental right in the Constitution to travel around anonymously. The government is well within its rights to stop those who are using the public resources for inspection.

    17. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by peg0cjs · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You're absolutely right! There's absolutely nothing wrong with treating your two largest customers like common criminals. After all, if the RIAA can do it, why not the government, too?

      Supporting stats: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/2004/1 2/balance.html

      --
      Karma: Excellent (Mainly due to Bill & Ted's Karma Adventure)
    18. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by peg0cjs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whatever happened to the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? If I'm abiding by the law and exhibiting no suspicious behaviour, it's arguable that stopping me just to take a look-see at my ID is unreasonable.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (Mainly due to Bill & Ted's Karma Adventure)
    19. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by w9ofa · · Score: 1


      it's arguable that stopping me just to take a look-see at my ID is unreasonable.


      If you make that argument, you must also say that you do not believe that people should submit to even minor inspections while the use a public resource. I'm sure that there are at least a few hundred people who are wanted that are picked up by the police in the matter.

      Do you really want to take away this potentially useful tool from law enforcement because you do not want to be inconvienced for a few minutes?

      Or are you just hate the po-lice?

    20. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by MortisUmbra · · Score: 1

      I can only wonder how fucked up its gotten around /. for THIS turd to be modded Insight.

      --

      "The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
    21. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, one more step closer to "Papers Please". This administration is beginning to resemble the Soviet Union I was raised to believe was evil and needed to be eliminated at any cost. What am I to do?

    22. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "If you are on public roads, you should be under public scrutiny. There's no fundamental right in the Constitution to travel around anonymously. The government is well within its rights to stop those who are using the public resources for inspection."

      I dunno about that...rights are not 'granted' by the constitution or bill of rights...I think it pretty much says, a right is still a right even if it is not enumerated.

      So, unless there is specifically a law or amendment against something, it is a right. So, in that light, yes, rights to privacy, and to travel anonymously are a fundamental right!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    23. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so comforting to see you all so easily give up other people's freedom. You're sick. You should move to China, or Malaysia. You will be so protected their from all those nasty people out there who are out to get you.

    24. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by yesteraeon · · Score: 1

      So build your own highway system then. I'm sure you can come up with the measily trillion or two.

      First of all the information gathered about me probably has next to nothing to do with the administration and maintaintance of the road I'm driving on. So, though I appreciate that the government has spent a lot of money on that road (appreciation I show by paying my taxes, btw) this point is irrelevant.

      If you are on public roads, you should be under public scrutiny. There's no fundamental right in the Constitution to travel around anonymously. The government is well within its rights to stop those who are using the public resources for inspection.

      Sure that's true up to a point. However, most people would agree that the right to privacy is an extrmely important one. But the right to have privacy in your home doesn't sound so great if (having committed no crime) you're subject to intense scrutiny every time you step outside.

      Even having said that, while the government is within its rights to ensure you're not breaking the law while using the public highway (or walking down the sidewalk to the corner store) a question arises as to what they do with that information. I wouldn't have much problem with this if, having determined that I'm a law-abiding citizen, the information gathered about me was destroyed. I think we all know that this is not what's happening. On the contrary incresingly these pieces of information, which individually are harmless are being collected to build a picture of how we live our lives. This is information that neither the government nor corporations for that matter have any right to.

    25. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by w9ofa · · Score: 2, Informative


      So, unless there is specifically a law or amendment against something, it is a right. So, in that light, yes, rights to privacy, and to travel anonymously are a fundamental right!


      Yes, you could make that case. However, given the fact that all states require car registration, and ID checks have been deemed legal by the Supreme Court, you would have a tough time with any court case on that argument.

      See: UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=428&invol=543

      So, according the Supreme Court, by their interpretation of the Constitution, you do not have the right to travel around anonymously. This is because the Fourth Amendment is protection against "unreasonable" search and seizure, and a few minute stop to check ID is almost certianly not "unreasonable".

    26. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Where's the "treating like criminals" part, exactly? Since when is showing your ID punative in some way? I have to show my ID when I travel to other places in the world, and I don't feel like a criminal at all. I supposed it's possible that criminals might feel like criminals, though. Gosh, that would suck.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    27. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by ehiris · · Score: 1

      If you drive between Phoenix and San Diego it's likely that you will get stopped by border patrol.

      The highway is close to the Mexican border.

    28. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      My mother had this happen to her. Had nothing to do with speeding or erratic driving. Her crime? The cop saw her driving my little brother's riced out del sol and thought she was some kid he could harass.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    29. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Really?

      Wow, I drove from Oregon to South Dakot and back last summer, paid cash and I can tell you there aren't traffic cams out past, oh, Hood River Oregon all the way to say Sioux Falls South Dakota. I wasn't stopped and I drove the hell out of the trip, at least 10-15 over the limit the whole way. So where was my trip logged or where did the ID come into play?

    30. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Supreme Court, of course, is all-knowing and never makes a mistake, and their opinion on the Constitution is final.

      Which is why blacks are still not allowed to be US citizens, just like Dred Scott says.

    31. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by An+Ominous+Cow+Erred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      EXCUSE ME, where did this attitude and why have we come to this?

      I remember when I was a kid, I was always told that one of the GREAT things about my country that made us better than the evil communists was that I could travel around my country without having to show my papers, without having to prove who I was, etc.

      I was told horror stories of the Soviet Union, about how to go between republics I'd have to show my papers at a checkpoint so they could track who I was and where I was going. I was told how evil this was and how I was lucky to be born in the U.S.A. where we had freedom and liberty and didn't have to show our identification in daily life.

      Twenty years later and I have to show my ID whenever I travel. I guess since we don't have the Soviet Union anymore, so we don't have to be better than them.

      We live in sad times.

    32. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...it's not unusual for me to be pulled over...

      That's too bad. One of the nice things about the states was the freedom to travel across the whole country for days without stopping for anything but to buy gas and take a dump. I wonder if Austrailia is still cool with letting people travel uninhibited. Soon you won't be able to leave the house without showing ID. Your door will be locked from the outside until you swipe the card. I actually feel sorry for those of you who still believe in freedom. Seeing as that you apparently are the minority, you're pretty much stuck. For the rest of you...well, I'm sure you can figure out what I think of you.

      --
      What?
    33. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      See, you're getting your lines crossed here.

      You're right, we don't have the right to travel around on the public streets anonymously. This is why we have LICENSE PLATES on the car. If cops want to they can run your plates. At this point, they should be limited to "reasonable search and seizure". If they want to stop someone, then either the plates pulled up a guy with outstanding warrants, or the guy is breaking the law, or the cop can just drive on by.

      No room in that for randomly stopping people just to see their ID and harass them.

    34. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by w9ofa · · Score: 1


      First of all the information gathered about me probably has next to nothing to do with the administration and maintaintance of the road I'm driving on. So, though I appreciate that the government has spent a lot of money on that road (appreciation I show by paying my taxes, btw) this point is irrelevant.


      Well, it is relevant if you consider that you would not have to submit to government regulation of your behaviour on the highway if you owned all of it. The fact that the government built it means that it is public property. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is reasonable to perform ID checks on public highways.

      This is information that neither the government nor corporations for that matter have any right to.

      While I'm not sure if there is any regulation with reguard to that fact, I do agree that the government has to right to archive this information. However, I do not believe that the government has its act together well enough to perform this feat.

    35. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Johnny5000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's what police are supposed to do

      Not in America, it isn't.

      At least not unless they have a good reason to pull you over and question you.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    36. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by w9ofa · · Score: 1


      No room in that for randomly stopping people just to see their ID and harass them.


      Hey AC, you put in the "and harass them", not me. I totally agree that the police have no right to harass anyone.

    37. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by temojen · · Score: 1

      And when visiting Canada, remember: the speed limit signs are in KM/h, not Miles/hour. You may not drive 30 miles/hour in a school zone, and 120 miles/hour on the freeway is right out.

    38. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by NeuralAbyss · · Score: 1

      I've been driving a fair bit in Oz the last couple of years.. state borders are a political thing, not a check-who's-coming-or-going thing.

      The only real regulation is that if you're living in a state for a contiguous period of more than (one?) two months, you must re-register your vehicle in that state.

      No biggie.

    39. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft I've seen cops doing 80+ in bumper to bumper traffic (go socal). The only folks who are legitimately pulled over (not for race/age/etc) are the 90+ crowd.

      But that's down here in the desert states.

    40. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Yes you can fly without the equivalent of showing a passport without being wealthy enough to own a business jet.

      As a pretty normal geek on a pretty normal salary, I could *comfortably* afford to run my old Cessna 140. The purchase price of this little plane was about half the price of most SUVs I saw my co-workers driving around in (and cheaper to insure), and it used less fuel (and travelled twice as fast) as their SUVs.

      Sure, it's not for everyone, but I flew that coast to coast, and my salary is pretty much a typical middle class salary.

      Only at the largest airports did I need to show any form of ID.

    41. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Interstate travel in the US already requires full identification"

      Airports have their reasons jackass.
      You're free to pass in and out of state by car.

    42. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by drew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless you're wealthy enough to afford a personal jet, you can't fly without the equivalent of showing a passport. (see freetotravel.org)

      Bullsh*T, my wife just did it over Christmas. Just tell them you forgot your ID, or lost it a week before. They'll still let you on the plane, you just have to spend a little longer in the security line. I did it once too. I was flying to Washington D.C. about 3 months after 9/11, and my ID fell out of my pocket on the flight out. The airline mailed it back to me, but I still had to get on the flight home. They let me on when I flashed my student ID (although I doubt I could get away with that again- Argenbright were still working security at the airport there even though they had their contract pulled some time before that, so I don't think they cared too much.)

      Of course, all of this depends on what your definition of travelling at a reasonable speed is. In my experience, a trip of 500 miles doesn't take much if any longer to drive than it does to fly, once you consider you have to get to the airport, get there and hour and a half early, get a car or get picked up at your destination airport, get from the destination airport to your real destination.... By that point, you're comparing an 8 hour drive with two one hour drives, an hour and a half flight, possibly a layover, another hour and a half in the airport(s).... Flying just doesn't seem worth it if your going somewhere you can drive in a day- either way your day is mostly shot.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    43. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Ageless · · Score: 1

      I'm confused about this. Do you not have a valid driver's license or something? I fly all the time and have never had to present a passport. I don't even have one.

    44. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      Shouldn't be too long before interstate travel in the US requires a passport. That'll finally put an end to criminals moving to another state to hide from the law.

      It will NEVER EVER HAPPEN. That is the day I am getting my gun and going ape shit.

      Plus, there are 100's of other reasons why passports for interstate travel will never happen

      • We tried it, it was called the Articles of Confederation
      • We can't even patrol the Mexican border, how will we patrol every freakin road
      • The citizens will NEVER EVER ALLOW IT
      • It will interfear with interstate commerce, so there will be court issues
      • How the hell will I get my Powerball Lottery tickets? And the Cheaper smokes across the state line?

      Now for the good:

      • More Smokey and the Bandit type movies
      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    45. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by karmatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Do you really want to take away this potentially useful tool from law enforcement because you do not want to be inconvienced for a few minutes?

      Strip searches and/or full body x-ray exams would be a potentially useful law enforcement tool for airline travel, and would only add a few minutes of inconvience. I still don't want them.

      The right (not freedom, right) to travel anonymously is an important part of freedom of religion, speech, and of the press. There are times where having one's whereabouts known can place you at risk from a government which is not behaving lawfully or others (ex-spouce, stalkers, etc.) You can tell a lot about a person by where and what he does. The more power the government has over our daily lives, the more harm a corrupt politician (is that reudndant?) could cause.

      Personally, I have a problem with any system that starts with an assumption of guilt. For example, I have no problem with searching a person in a public place because he was behaving in a overtly suspicious manner, or presenting a visible danger to himself or others. I do have a problem with searching everyone, on the assumption that they may be guilty.

      The fact of the matter is that everyone is _always_ guilty of something, and accordingly _always_ a suspect for something or other. With our system of laws as convoluted as it is, the day you break no law is the day you don't get out of bed.

    46. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the America I know. Where are YOU from?

    47. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, but I haven't seen a cop doing random checks that was happy to be there and shareing that happiness with everyone they stopped.

    48. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by mzwaterski · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure that you are thinking clearly. Showing ID is just to prove that you are the person on the ticket. When you purchased the ticket you provided your name. This is what allowed you to be tracked. At the airport they don't record your driver's license number or even scan your ID. They just look at the name and the picture and say, "Welcome Mr. Smith." If you really want to find something to complain about, look to the fact that you have to provide your name when purchasing a ticket. But good luck finding a decent argument there as you probably bought your ticket with a credit card or at the very least a check. Point is, that you expose yourself publicly in many more ways than simply showing an ID at the airport. If someone really wants to track you, steal your identity, etc...they will, cause its not that hard. So, what are you really giving up by verifying your identity before boarding a plane?

      Surely you aren't advocating annoymous flight with no metal detectors and luggage xrays? Frankly, I wouldn't consider flying if those things were not there.

    49. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What reason would that be, "jackass"? Oh right, to make sure the terrorists have legally issued identification, just like they did in 9/11.

    50. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by w9ofa · · Score: 1


      The more power the government has over our daily lives, the more harm a corrupt politician (is that reudndant?) could cause.


      I agree. I am mainly arguing against the (in my opinion) extreme view that the government has no right to ask you what you are up to while you are in public.

      I'm not advocating the widespread use of this tool - but it certainly has come in useful in the past.

    51. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Do you really want to take away this potentially useful tool from law enforcement because you do not want to be inconvienced for a few minutes?

      Yes. Why do you think that the incompetence of the police should be compensated for by eliminating the rights of the innocent?

    52. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Showing ID is just to prove that you are the person on the ticket.

      Why should that matter to security? The airlines might have a problem with people reselling tickets, but security doesn't have any reason to care whether the names match.

      Surely you aren't advocating annoymous flight with no metal detectors and luggage xrays?

      Huh? What do X-ray machines have to do with anonymity? Are you saying that they store the X-ray results and link them to my identity? Are you required send stuff through the X-ray machine? (in case you are wondering, the answer is no)

      Checking ID prevents such hardened criminals as Cat Stevens from entering the US. Boy, I feel safer.

    53. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      I'm going to assume you're doing something midway between trolling and playing devils advocate. I'm also going to assume you do not believe what you're writing.

      I don't believe slashdot is the type of forum to allow a meaningful response to the point you're making. If anything, I think it's sad to watch some of these people try.

    54. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by francisew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder how this viewpoint isn't more generally expressed by the population of North America.

      This continent is becoming a lot like that which we seem to want to avoid.

      I wonder if there is a higher level of concern among the tech sector as compared to the general populace?

      I wonder if what's next is having obligatory tracking of people. It's already happening with parolees, so when does it begin to happen with more people?

      I've expressed my concern at the level of secrecy involved in portable electronics. It's alarming to me that so many devices run code which can't legally be verified to confirm that they perform *only* the tasks we expect.

      What *moderate* organizations exist to combat the tricky points of where our society is going? It'd be nice to organize to try to find solutions to the serious governance problems that seem to be brewing.

    55. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by RodgerDodger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ironically, the highways are where you don't have to show ID.

      However, the privately owned and operated air transport network is required by the US government to ask passengers to show ID. And the equally privately owned and operated rail network is likely to be required soon.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    56. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by kaszeta · · Score: 1
      Where's the "treating like criminals" part, exactly? Since when is showing your ID punative in some way? I have to show my ID when I travel to other places in the world, and I don't feel like a criminal at all. I supposed it's possible that criminals might feel like criminals, though. Gosh, that would suck.

      Note that it's not just showing ID in my case, I show them my bonafide US Citizen credentials. I also have to tell them where I've been, where I'm going, and what I was doing, or put up with a lot of inconvenience.

      To answer your previous comment, this really concerns me because of the slippery slope. I don't really mind heavy border security, but when the definition of "border" gets extended to 100 miles (with a major intersection with another Interstate between the border and the checkpoint), I get concerned, because the same rationale they used to extend it to 100 miles can be used to extend it further (hey, people can fly from Canada to airports all over the US, we should be able to check peoples' papers anywhere!). And I'm also concerned that after showing valid ID, they still get to ask me all sorts of questions that I'm compelled to answer.

      And, scarily, most people don't seem to mind. Myself, I get a little irritated when my civil liberties are put on the back burner behind convenience for a Border Patrol that isn't patroling borders...

    57. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      Driving on some highways in Texas there are Border Patrol checkpoints that are very much like the ones when you cross the border into Canada. They stop your car and look at your ID and look under your car with a mirror on a long pole. And this isn't near the Mexican border, but over a hundred miles away where you're not crossing any border -- just an average pasty-white American citizen driving home.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    58. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Spectra72 · · Score: 1
      SEE! The Amazing Randy get into a car as a passenger! WATCH! as The Amazing Randy is driven in modern comfort across State Lines. BE AMAZED! as The Amazing Randy shows no ID.

      Tune in next week folks for another STUPENDOUS! installment of THE AMAZING RANDY...Interstate Traveler Extraordinaire! POW!

    59. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      If you are on public roads, you should be under public scrutiny. There's no fundamental right in the Constitution to travel around anonymously. The government is well within its rights to stop those who are using the public resources for inspection.
      Yes, the government has the right to regulate a public resource. But "you should be under public scrutiny"? Fuck that. It's an undesirable situation.

      Just as the government has the right to make travelling on a public resource a pain in the ass, scary, and opressive, it also has the right and responsibility to not do that. This is a case where government has the power to do something, so they just do it, without regard of the public's interest.

      It should be opposed. Not on constitutional grounds, but on "stop fucking us over" grounds. It's not a question of rights; it's a question of values. How do you want things to be?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    60. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Time to spare? Go by air.

      Seriously, getting around in a small plane is both faster and more fun than driving. It's almost faster than commercial air. (I once did a trip from Waterloo, Ont, to Denver -- and vice versa -- in a C-172RG. It took about 11 hours, with one customs and one fuel stop. By commercial air, I'd have to drive to Toronto (or Detroit), change planes in Chicago, and hang around for a couple of hours at each airport. Mind, if I'd hit bad weather I'd have been stuck.

      The other problem is ground transportation at your destination, but you have that problem with commercial air travel too.

      --
      -- Alastair
    61. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by centauri · · Score: 1, Insightful

      OR...

      Maybe we never were better than them in this regard. Maybe all that stuff you were told as a kid about how bad it is to have to show your papers was propaganda.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    62. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      Even interstate buses and trains now usually require ID for ticket purchases.

      That's strange. I've never had to show ID for interstate train travel in the United States. And based on what I've seen of the people getting off the buses at the Greyhound station, I don't think any of those people have IDs. At least not from this country.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    63. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by dorsey · · Score: 1

      If you and your family are US citizens, then why would you even have your passports with you if you were only traveling within the country? Perhaps you left out a few details...

      --
      hinderfreude ('hin-dur-"froi-d&), n. The feeling of joy derived from being in the way.
    64. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      If I'm abiding by the law and exhibiting no suspicious behaviour, it's arguable that stopping me just to take a look-see at my ID is unreasonable.

      It's too bad the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you.

      That said, for the last six months I lived in Houston, my wife would get pulled over every week or so for driving-while-blonde-in-a-sports-car just so some hillbilly with a tin star could harrass her. When she told one Harris County Sheriff's deputy that she didn't want to go on a date with him, he accused her of stealing the car she was in (it was my car).

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    65. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by mzwaterski · · Score: 1
      So, because there is one person that you don't agree should be prohibitted than the whole policy is wrong?

      As to the metal detector, you may not be legally required to submit the x-ray, but I'd love to be there when you refuse to send your stuff through. You are "effectively" required to submit to the x-ray. You are however not required to go through the medical detector, but you must submit to a more intrusive physical search by a TSA agent.

      Back to the subject at hand, assuming that you don't fake your ID (big assumption) checking ID's has a lot to do with security. If we know that X has made plans to bring a bomb on an airplane, he should have a more difficult time getting onto the airplane. Of course, if you are against that, we could just subject every person to a strip search before boarding, but somehow I don't think that you'll find that reasonable either.

    66. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      What *moderate* organizations exist to combat the tricky points of where our society is going?
      You shouldn't use words like "moderate" because it's all relative. Some people might think they're moderate, but view the "mainstream" as extreme. Are these people extreme?

      If you think so, then you can't be helped -- there is no moderate organization to oppose heavy statism, and there never will be. Because, from the mainstream point of view, government is supposed to make all the decisions, and any departure from that, is extreme.

      If you think that viewing the mainstream as extreme, is not an extreme position in itself, then there are possibilities. But you won't find them if you keep using the word "moderate" in your keyword searches. ;-)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    67. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Spectra72 · · Score: 1
      "...Do you really want to take away this potentially useful tool from law enforcement because you do not want to be inconvienced for a few minutes?..."

      Abso-frickin-lutely. The State is not your friend.
    68. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      hey, people can fly from Canada to airports all over the US, we should be able to check peoples' papers anywhere

      Come on, now - coming and going through an airport already takes care of the border problem. It's driving/walking/floating that's the problem, and places that surrounded by lots of boarder roads, open terrain, coastline - it makes sense to think more in terms of border area then, I think. That being said, actual border patrol work needs to be way, way picked up.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    69. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by BritneySP2 · · Score: 1
      I was told horror stories of the Soviet Union, about how to go between republics I'd have to show my papers at a checkpoint so they could track who I was and where I was going.

      Those were lies. There were (and I am sure still are) checkpoints around so-called "closed zones" - large naval bases, borders, even some small cities where secret institutions were located, etc., but never around entire republics.

    70. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you about travel inside the US, I disagree
      about passports for Canada. Canada has lax controls and very
      liberal safe haven laws and it really doesn't bother me that
      we ask Canadians to do what we ask of other countries. But
      it would be unfair for us to apply the standard one way, hence
      the new requirement for US citizens.

    71. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats wrong with requiring travel papers for crossing borders? Whats wrong with detaining terrorists indefinitely without charges or access to a lawyer?

      It worked fine in Soviet Russia, so it should work fine in Soviet America, no?

    72. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "EXCUSE ME, where did this attitude and why have we come to this?"

      Because, as George Bush pointed out not long after the Sept 11 2001 attacks, the terrorists have won.

      I quote from memory;

      "If the terrorists can make us change our way of life then they will have won".

      Thanks for stating the obvious, George, but the game is obviously over.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    73. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      In the Soviet Union you describe, you had to have *permission* to do said traveling. Which is a far cry from your 'papers' being checked at points, wherever you choose to travel within your country.

    74. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was propaganda.

      It wasn't. But enjoy life in your fantasy world.

    75. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Actually, what's fucked up around /. is that topics like this even get put on the site.

      Come on. Isn't this more the kind of thing for political bitchsites like democraticunderground or lucianne.com?

    76. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      I was told horror stories of the Soviet Union, about how to go between republics I'd have to show my papers at a checkpoint so they could track who I was and where I was going.

      No, you and everyone else trotting this out are wrong. The horror was not having to provide ID all the time. That was just petty mistrust of the citizenry. The real horror was that the REASON you had to show papers was that any travel had to be PRE-AUTHORIZED by the state. By default, you were not permitted to travel anywhere, no matter how much ID you had. The "papers" from the phrase "papers, please" are not identification papers, they are AUTHORIZATION papers, passes, and permits.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    77. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      Um, if you know X has made plans to bring a bomb, get X's photo distributed to the airport guards. They can then look for someone matching the description, and just get them to prove who they are.

      As long as the description isn't "short, swarthy, and wearing a turban", this wouldn't be a problem.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    78. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Not 'unreasonable' in the same sense 70 years is 'temporary'. Take care to differentiate recent goverment acts from 'reasonable' care to apply the principles of the Constitution.

    79. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      A good point. But then, how can you have the permission requirement without a method of enforcement - a mandatory passport.

    80. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit!!!
      Authorization was not required for travel inside USSR, except for border areas. Internal passport, which everybody 16 years and older had, was required for air travel and no ID whatsoever was required for travel by train or bus.

    81. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      In this case you aren't traveling "about your country". You are traveling to another country and then back or for all the border officials know you are coming for the first time and don't plan on leaving w/o being killed. Also, in the Soviet Union it was federal gov't officials doing the checking. There may be checks within states or cities like someone else mentioned where they check your driver's license for getting on the bus but that isn't the federal gov't doing it like it was in the Soviet Union. They don't care where you are going either, yet.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    82. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think he was talking about the highway system, which is about the only way to travel anymore without getting endlessly harassed by the government (provided you do it in your own car, and follow the traffic laws, and aren't black). Though, it's pretty annoying (in my opinion) when you have to travel more than about 500 miles, and even then, 500 miles is pretty much a full day of driving.

    83. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well FINE.

      You can grow your own goddamn weed.

    84. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by bored · · Score: 1

      Yah, this is really gotten on my nerves a number of times. I drive to Big Bend, or South Padre and on the way home they search my vehicle for Mexicans in my trunk. Its lots of fun if you have non American Tourists in your vehicle, especially when their visa's are about to expire.

    85. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different AC. (Man, at the rate Slashdot is going lately, I might have to break down and just get a login. The other day, lots of comments from peopel who never heard of Marbury vs. Madison, and who think that the Supreme Court has had the power of interpeting the Constitution since that document was ratified, isntead of since 1803 when Marbury vs. Madison occurred. Today people who think that random ID checks are of any use, and who don't recognize that internal passports are a traditional hallmark of tyranny.)

      But I do think that the police stopping you, at all, when they have no probable cause, is harassment in and of itself.

      And "Well, I thought that if I pulled you over at random, I might catch a serial killer" does not strike me as probable cause. Especially since I can't think of any serial killers who have been caught by random ID checks.

    86. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you people. You either thought I was joking or flamebaiting? I'm completely serious. You lose no freedoms being stopped by a police officer, to see what's going on. If he was going through your stuff, that's one thing, but It's perfectly free, and 100% American for the police to ask people what they're doing, and I for one am glad they do it. If you were walking instead of traveling in a car, and a cop politely asked what you were doing, would you see that as a violation of your freedoms? It's the same in a car, you just have to pull over so you can chat. Jeez you guys are uptight.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    87. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by Grunschev · · Score: 1

      No, you and everyone else trotting this out are wrong.

      Perhaps you're misunderestimating everyone else trotting this out. When somebody says we're becoming the kind of state we used to call the "Evil Empire", they generally don't mean we've already arrived there.

      But I'm glad you've cleared it up for me. I'm happy that I live in a country that detains thousands of people without trials, tortures many of them, kills some of them, invades other nations because we don't like their political leaders, and demands its citizens present ID when travelling within our borders. Just so long as they're only asking for my ID because of a "petty mistrust of the citizenry" and not something more devious.

      I won't worry about it any more. I'll not let it bother me when I get stopped in my car on my way from Phoenix to Las Vegas to be asked where I'm going, where I'm coming from, that sort of thing. It's just the border patrol, right? I'm quite happy they're checking my car for illegal aliens 300 miles from the nearest border (unless you count the border between Arizona and Nevada).

      But I can't help but notice the biggest difference I see between the USA today and the Soviet Union when I travelled there in the mid-70's is that Soviet citizens were safe from crime and we're not. Maybe the crime will go away when we finish our trip to becoming a police state.

      Igor

    88. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by w9ofa · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I agree, there is a line there.

      In my opinion, an ID check is in the interests of society. I can see how someone could see it differently.

      I agree, the level of argument on Slashdot is rather poor. It seems full of random 15 year old hax0rs who failed US History class.



      But I do think that the police stopping you, at all, when they have no probable cause, is harassment in and of itself.


      I understand that Marbury vs. Madison was the case in which the Supreme Court invented their right of judicial review. I'm not sure I agree with that either, but since we have 200 years of jurisprudence that effect, it seems to be here to stay. You could make a Constitutional argument that it is unreasonable to randomly perform ID checks. The current powers-that-be disagree. I do think that there are dangers with internal passports, but I said at no time that the ID check should inquire into your travels.

      Merely inspecting cars to see that they posses the documentation required by law is not unreasonable, in my opinion. It would be unreasonable for people's right to free assembly to be limited in any way by these checks. (I assume this is what you are implicitly arguing against when you mention the dangers of internal passports.)

      LIke it or not, it is the case that we are required to have ID when we drive. I'm merely stating that it is just for the government to enforce this rule. Everything else is off the table.

    89. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So, because there is one person that you don't agree should be prohibitted than the whole policy is wrong?

      If there were 100 executions scheduled this year and you knew one of them was wrongly convicted, would you kill the 99 guilty ones and accept the fact that one innocent person would be put to death? Or would you hold off on all executions until it could be determined who the innocent person was, even if that meant never executing the guilty?

      I prefer to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. There are excessive false positives (and false negatives) in the system. Having no system is better than a system as flawed as what we currently have.

      As to the metal detector, you may not be legally required to submit the x-ray, but I'd love to be there when you refuse to send your stuff through.

      I've only done it once. "Could you please search that one by hand, I don't want it going through the X-ray machine." Yes, that was pre-9/11, but I had no trouble with it, and people with cameras have hand searches all the time.

      If we know that X has made plans to bring a bomb on an airplane, he should have a more difficult time getting onto the airplane.

      And you think that security will notice? Are the TSA agents checking ID comparing them to a database in realtime? No. So "security" is unrelated to the bombing example you gave. The airline may provide a passenger list to the feds (though the feds have broken their own laws leaking personal information, so airlines are reluctant), but otherwise there is nothing that is gained by checking IDs. It only gains the appearance of security, not actual security.

    90. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by w9ofa · · Score: 1


      I'm going to assume you're doing something midway between trolling and playing devils advocate.


      I really do think that it is reasonable for the government to perform random ID checks on public highways. I guess I didn't realize how extreme this position was compared to Slashdot mainstream.


      I don't believe slashdot is the type of forum to allow a meaningful response to the point you're making. If anything, I think it's sad to watch some of these people try.


      I've been on Slashdot awhile now (since late 90's). I've read comments on and off, and occasionally responded. I guess I thought that people who supposedly use computers regularly would be interested in learning true facts and making reasonable arguments.

      The more I use computers, the more I'm coming to realize that humans cannot interact with each other through text without alot of disclipline. It seems to me, that people tend to read all kinds of slogans and ideologies into the words they are reading, and then respond half-cocked without thinking. I've been guilty of the same thing myself, but this is the first time I've started a thread like this on Slashdot.

      I'm really surprised at the degree that my original comments caused people to discount my American patriotism. I'm not advocating internal passports, nor am I advocating the elimination of personal privacy.

      All I'm suggesting is that people be held to a higher standard of accountability when they are using public resources. I think that perhaps this is what people are really against.

    91. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by peg0cjs · · Score: 1
      It seems to me, that people tend to read all kinds of slogans and ideologies into the words they are reading, and then respond half-cocked without thinking.

      HOW DARE YOU MAKE SUCH BROAD GENERALIZATIONS! You obviously be some kind of pot-smoking, gun-toting, kitten killing, Bible-thumping, ne'er-do-well with a God complex! Why if I had half a mind I'd...oh wait...I get it :)

      --
      Karma: Excellent (Mainly due to Bill & Ted's Karma Adventure)
    92. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by tftp · · Score: 1
      I was told horror stories of the Soviet Union, about how to go between republics I'd have to show my papers at a checkpoint

      You were lied to. A citizen was as free to travel across the whole USSR as you are free to travel USA.

      There were no borders between republics, and even if the borders somehow did exist there wouldn't be enough people in the whole Soviet Union to guard them.

      The only thing you needed to have with you when you bought an airplane ticket was a valid photo ID, of which the most convenient one was given to everyone at the age of 16 (an internal passport.) Trains and buses (and small ships) did not require any ID whatsoever. Don't know about oceangoing ships, this kind of travel is too obsolete.

    93. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by peg0cjs · · Score: 1
      I really do think that it is reasonable for the government to perform random ID checks on public highways. I guess I didn't realize how extreme this position was compared to Slashdot mainstream.

      I don't mind if it's just random checks against plates to search for things like outstanding warrants or stolen vehicles. Indeed, that's part of their jobs. Hypocritically, I even support checkstops for DUIs, because I honestly believe that drinking & driving is a threat to our society. I guess it boils down to a cost/benefit analysis, where the costs are in terms of loss of privacy and the benefits are in terms of that intangible known as "good to society".

      But I am deeply bothered when cops begin pulling people over and interrogating them for no reason. When I have to JUSTIFY my presence to a peace officer, it goes beyond simply identifying myself. I also believe it is beyond any measure of "reasonable" in our society. That whole "only the guilty have something to hide" argument just doesn't hold a lot of weight with me.

      It really does have nothing to do with accountability. The law states that I have the right to enjoy public roads unmolested so long as I abide by the law. For some reason now, the rules have changed.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (Mainly due to Bill & Ted's Karma Adventure)
    94. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by w9ofa · · Score: 1

      When I have to JUSTIFY my presence to a peace officer, it goes beyond simply identifying myself.

      I agree wholeheartedly. No law would justify this treatment, and I'm certain that any court would agree that you are not obligated to tell the police officer anything beyond furnishing your required ID (when driving).

      Otherwise, all bets are off. Granted, the cop could still ASK what you are up to, and if you raise his suspicious, he is perfectly within the law to decide if it gives him probable cause to perform further search. However, you are in no way required to tell him anything about what you are up to, and if you are committing some illeagal act it would be in your best interests to decline further conversation. If he tried to compel you to give him more information, he would be violating the freedom of assembly as well as your right to not self-incriminate.

      It really does have nothing to do with accountability.

      It does only so far as ensuring that people who are driving on roads meet the leagal minimums (carry appropriate drivers ID, have insurance, registration). Anything further is off the table.

      The law states that I have the right to enjoy public roads unmolested so long as I abide by the law.

      The law, in most states, says that you have many obligations to meet if you are going to drive responsibly on public roads. The police have the responsibility to enforce these. Everything else is off the table.

      For some reason now, the rules have changed.

      No, I don't think so. I think that the police, if they were well-coordinated and smart, could set up strategic ID checks at times and places where they think wanted criminals are going to be transiting.
      This would be a good use of tax dollars. A poor use of tax dollars would be a static ID checkpoint that is well known to all. But that doesn't make it illeagal or unconstitutional.

    95. Re:What's next? Interstate travel? by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      But I can't help but notice the biggest difference I see between the USA today and the Soviet Union

      If that's really the biggest difference you see, then that says all I need to know about your perception and/or judgement abilities.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  6. YRO? by slacktide · · Score: 1

    Isn't this more like "Your Rights Offline" than "Your Rights Online?"

    1. Re:YRO? by stecoop · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your Rights Offline

      No, you'll have to go online to get a good fake passport.

    2. Re:YRO? by jinzumkei · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your Rights Offline is still YRO. Yay for spelling!

    3. Re:YRO? by OAB_X · · Score: 1

      The mods are drunk again, "privacy" is better.

    4. Re:YRO? by daishin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Isn't this more like "Your Rights Offline" than "Your Rights Online?"

      Its more like "Your Rights Over a Line".

      --
      (\_/)
      (O.o) This is Bunny. Add Bunny to your signature
      (> <) to help him achieve world domination.
    5. Re:YRO? by piltdownman84 · · Score: 1

      Yes as I understand the article this is manly for car traffic, but also should effect Rockcliffe Airport (YRO), just north east of Ottawa. Maybe try YEG (Edmonton) or YYC (Calgary) since Alberta seems to like the states more , and be more like the state, than the rest of canada.

    6. Re:YRO? by SamSim · · Score: 1

      I think it should be something more like "Your Rights, Online". Since we are discussing your rights, online. Oh wait, actually, sometimes we do discuss the rights people have when they are online so maybe "Your Rights Online, Online" would be better. Oh. But sometimes we don't. "Your Rights (Online), Online"?

      And sometimes we don't even discuss my rights specifically, so make that "Some People's Rights (Online), Online". SPR(O)O.

      Dang it. Um, how about "Rights"?

  7. I remember when.. by neoform · · Score: 5, Interesting

    i was able to cross the border just by telling the customs agent where i was going and for how long..

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
    1. Re:I remember when.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Into Canada?
      Getting back into the us is always harder than getting into Canada for some reason. Even when I was a kid, I can remember how easily we got into Canada. There has always been some crap with getting back in the U.S.

    2. Re:I remember when.. by panda · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, and so do I.

      I once went to Canada with three Japanese students who were studying in America. When we got to the Canadian border control, I went inside the office with them in case they had linguistic problems. The official there looked at each of their passports, looked at their visas for the U.S., then stamped that they'd entered Canada.

      He looked to me with his hand out as if expecting another passport. I simply answered, "I'm a citizen." He smiled and let us through.

      The Americans did check my driver's license on the way back, though.

      'Course, this was 15 years ago.....

      --
      Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
    3. Re:I remember when.. by Fizzog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      15 years ago I was travelling around the US, having entered on a Visa Waiver with my British Passport.

      I was up near Canada and decided to go and visit Toronto. So I drove across some bridge (with US Immigration at one end and Canadian Immigration at the other) and rocked up to the office.

      I gave the guy my Passport which he checked over and duly stamped. He then tells me: 'You know you can't get back into the USA now, right?'

      Apparently there is/was some very peculiar rule whereby if you leave the USA via a different means than you entered (eg. I flew into the USA but exited by car) then your Visa was no longer valid for USA entry.

      After a brief panic attack on my part the Canadian Immigration guy called up the Yanks at the other end of the bridge and they discussed it for a few minutes. The Yanks said it should be okay to get back in, which I eventually did at Niagra Falls. The Yank there looked at the Passport and Visa and just waved me through.

      I just can't believe the Canadian Immigration guy stamped my Passport and *then* told me the consequences of him doing that.

    4. Re:I remember when.. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1
      I just can't believe the Canadian Immigration guy stamped my Passport and *then* told me the consequences of him doing that.

      Why is it the responsibility of the CANADIAN immigration officer to tell you what the rules are in the USA? When I went to Cuba on holidays the Cuban officer didn't say "You know, senor, once I stamp your Canadian passport you might have trouble visiting the USA."

    5. Re:I remember when.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only bigger idiots than US immigration are Canadian immigration. Both could learn a thing or two from our British cousins.

    6. Re:I remember when.. by peg0cjs · · Score: 1

      From the northern side of the border, I've always found it to be the reverse. For some reason Canadian customs always gave me a tougher time on my way back than US customs did on my way in. Must be that whole money drain thing...

      --
      Karma: Excellent (Mainly due to Bill & Ted's Karma Adventure)
    7. Re:I remember when.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was before the terrorists won.

    8. Re:I remember when.. by Malc · · Score: 1

      I know somebody who walked across at the Peace Bridge to Canada just last week. He didn't even get stopped by Canadian immigration/customs. This was after Greyhound had refused to let him on a bus in Buffalo because he only had a driver's license on him.

    9. Re:I remember when.. by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I just can't believe the Canadian Immigration guy stamped my Passport and *then* told me the consequences of him doing that.

      What did you expect? That's how an EULA works :)

      --
      What?
    10. Re:I remember when.. by Quixote · · Score: 1
      Apparently there is/was some very peculiar rule whereby if you leave the USA via a different means than you entered (eg. I flew into the USA but exited by car) then your Visa was no longer valid for USA entry.

      There never was/is such a rule. I should know, I live 2 miles from the Canadian border. I entered the US through NYC on a single-entry visa, and regularly went/go across the border to Canada (ballet, anyone? ;-) ). Even if you have a "single entry" visa to the US, you can go back and forth across the Canadian border as many times as you wish (as long as you have the ability to enter Canada). Going to/from Canada is not considered an "exit" from the US.

      I remember a time back when Immigrations Canada people used to give out free visas to foreign students, to get them to visit Canada during the holidays. We used to take full advantage of this, tipping the strippers, er, I mean, investing wisely in Canada. And then they started charging C$110 (for a 1 year multiple-entry visa), and that put an end to those trips.

    11. Re:I remember when.. by gg3po · · Score: 1

      I've crossed the US - Mexico border many times, and usually this works. From what I can tell, they don't really care where you're going and what you'll be doing. They just want to make sure you don't have a strong "Cheech and Chong" accent when you answer. Interestingly enough, the toughest border patrol guards are the foreign ones (yes, there are *many* foreiners working at INS) -- probably because they are less able to verify that my accent is authentic (although my family is several generation USian, I am hispanic). I was once sent to the "2nd" inspection area by a Filipino guard (he could barely speak English, himself... I felt like I should be the one demanding *his* papers) who thought I was "very strange" because my rental car had an out of state (non CA) license plate. The guys at 2nd revision just basically asked the same "where are you from and where you going?" question, and were like "Why did that idiot send you to us? Go on your way."

      --
      ---
    12. Re:I remember when.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I visited Canada on a one year student visa (Vancouver) from Ireland. The place rocks. Expect more foreign students over the next few years! People are thinking twice about going to the US.

    13. Re:I remember when.. by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      Why is it the responsibility of the CANADIAN immigration officer to tell you what the rules are in the USA?

      Common human decency?
      I thought the Canadians were supposed to be good with that stuff.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    14. Re:I remember when.. by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Sneaking accross the border, you can get accross the border without a passport or even a drivers liscence.

      Story: The Toronto Maple Leafs are the most loved hockey team in the world, tickets are sold out like 15 years in advance. But accross the border there are the Buffalo Sabres arguably the laughing stock of hockey (When I go down there their fans heckle them like mad). Anyway whenever Toronto (Or any canadian Team) plays in Buffalo the stadium get's sold out with Canadian fans.

      When the game is over they wave the hockey fans back accross the border.

    15. Re:I remember when.. by Ken+D · · Score: 1

      Even if the guy didn't stamp your passport, do you think that if you drove back across the bridge to the US checkpoint, that they would have cared that your passport wasn't stamped? Actually they might have given you more grief if it wasn't stamped, after all, you are *already* on the other side of the border.

    16. Re:I remember when.. by xander2032 · · Score: 1

      I do too... Before 9/11 life was so much easier. (And I still don't understand how the world has "changed"... But oh well)

      At the Detroit/Windsor crossing they used to barely ask you anything. The Canadians seemed happy that you were going to their bars? lol

      As for the Americans, they wanted to know what you were doing in Canada and what your citizenship was. Then they just let you go.

      Now it's insane! I was never searched before, but now it's like every few trips over the border they have to pull the car over to the side and the search it.

      Although a couple times I've gotten off easy. Some of those customs agents get lazy and they just ask you questions and never bother to ask to see your documents. lol

    17. Re:I remember when.. by drew · · Score: 1

      yeah, me too. it was almost three years ago (july 2002).

      i was fishing with my dad, my grandpa, and a couple of my uncles on one of the lakes that straddles the Canadian border. We got in a boat on the US side, motored partway across the lake, and stopped at a dock a little ways across the 'border'. we stood on the dock for a while, until a canadian customs agent came out and asked us where were were going, how long, and if we had any alcohol. I don't remember if she looked at ID's or not, but if she did, she couldn't have done more than glance at them. she did write down the registration of the boat, but i think that was about it. we spent the week at my uncles cabin, on the canadian side of the lake, and when it was time to come home, we motored back to a little island with a phone booth on it. inside the booth was a little camera. my uncle dialed the number posted on the pooth and looked into the camera. he told the guy on the other end that we were coming back from canada. the guy asked, 'how long were you there?'. just over a week. 'how many of you are there?' 4 (the other three had come out earlier in a separate boat) 'ok, have a nice day.'

      that was it....

      alternatively, i have also heard stories of how my great grandfather, who was born in america to german immigrants, was trapped on the mackinaw (?) bridge with his family. american customs wouldn't let him in because they said he was a german spy, and once they found out the americans wouldn't let him in, the canadians didn't want him either. he ended up walking back and forth on the bridge from one customs office to the other until he finally managed to convince one side or the other (i forget which) that he really was an american citizen who lived in michigan.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    18. Re:I remember when.. by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Why is it the responsibility of the CANADIAN immigration officer to tell you what the rules are in the USA?

      Hmmm... doesn't seem like it was his responsibility, but it's still a bit of a cold thing to do. Obviously he knew that there would be a problem, but stamped the passport anyway. Just mean - thought Canadians were nicer.

    19. Re:I remember when.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmmmm, Canadian strippers...

      Full nudity and hearts of gold. Damn I miss that country.

    20. Re:I remember when.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the Cuban customs officer won't say that to a Canadian - because it doesn't matter (the US will NOT restrict entry to someone just for visiting Cuba... it's not like the Arab countries w/ Israel). But if you're an American you can be quite sure the Cuban customs officer won't stamp your passport. Trust me on that - I've been there a couple of times.

      "Huh? Oh yes, I did get a tan while visiting Toronto, thanks for noticing."

    21. Re:I remember when.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting noted and forwarded to the department of homeland security.

    22. Re:I remember when.. by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 1

      A couple weeks after 9/11, I went to Canada with my father, and while waiting to enter Canada, the car was closely looked at by the Canadians, and they gave us the third degree on entering. When we returned to the border, the American border guard simply asked us if we were American citizens, and let us in.

      --
    23. Re:I remember when.. by tangent3 · · Score: 1

      I did not have that problem when I (from Singapore, also a Visa Waivered country) visited the US the year after 9/11. I landed in NY for a couple of days and went north to Montreal for a few days, visited Ontario and Ottawa before coming back through Niagara.

      I remembered the instructions on the Visa Waiver form specifically said that if I'm leaving the US temporarily and plan to come back before the end of the visa period, I should not surrender the half of the Visa Waiver form stapled to my passport. So we simply informed the Immigration lady that we need to keep the form, and she smiled and let us through. No problems coming back too.

      P.S. I just love those road signs at the border saying "We are now using the metric system for speed limits"

    24. Re:I remember when.. by csk_1975 · · Score: 1

      Yeah me too and I'm not Canadian or American! 20 years ago I was with some friends who decided to do a beer run over the US border from Ontario with me in the pickup truck! I was pretty nervous but the border guards didn't even bat an eye - the only question was on the return journey when they were much more interested in whether we had too much beer than who was in the car.

    25. Re:I remember when.. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1
      (the US will NOT restrict entry to someone just for visiting Cuba... it's not like the Arab countries w/ Israel)

      It's all about degrees. In 2000 I went to Jordan and Egypt on holiday (great places to visit BTW). As a result I had all these giant visas full of Arabic in my Canadian passport. I got so tired for all the questions I got at US border checkpoints that eventually a got a new passport. They didn't "restrict" entry, they just "hassled" entry. Same thing happened to a friend with a Cuba stamp.

  8. Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    That'll stop Terr'rists! The 9/11 hijackers had legit ID, sheesh. More scare tactics to make you feel safe as the government takes away your freedom of movement.

    1. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they didn't have legit ID. They had student visas which, had the INS been on the ball, would have been an instant indicator that they were not where they should have been and were not doing what they should have been doing.

      Oh, and the government hasn't taken away any freedom of movement with this ruling, by the way.

      Nice troll, though.

    2. Re:Phew! by portwojc · · Score: 1

      As the government takes away freedom of your movement? I didn't see anything in the article mentioning freedom of movement being stopped.

    3. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      As the government takes away freedom of your movement? I didn't see anything in the article mentioning freedom of movement being stopped.


      And if you don't have your passport, you can't get into the country, whereas you could before. That's what an open border implies. Even if you're a US citizen, if you lose your passport you may not be able to get in. That sounds like it'd stop your freedom of movement in the country pretty well if you ask me.

    4. Re:Phew! by badasscat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That'll stop Terr'rists! The 9/11 hijackers had legit ID, sheesh. More scare tactics to make you feel safe as the government takes away your freedom of movement.

      Last time I travelled to Japan I was required to show my passport upon re-entering the United States. Last time I travelled to Europe (more than ten years ago!), same thing.

      The deal we had with Canada was a special thing. You don't have any "right" to travel to another country and then re-enter without a passport. In fact, most countries require it - including the United States in every other case (except now with Mexico - and you can bet the DHS is looking at that now too).

      This is just closing a loophole in the current immigration system. I don't see why Americans should continue to be able to get away without even owning a passport when practically every other citizen of the civilized world carries one pretty much wherever they go. There's no reason for us to be smug about our backwardness.

    5. Re:Phew! by er_head66 · · Score: 1

      This is most untrue. In Europe, there is a wonderful understanding between most countries allowing one to travel through borders without being stopped. The current, and by current I pre-2001, setup between the States and Canada was nice, being able to drive across with just your drivers licence...something most drivers possess. Last week when I went down to New York by bus, I had to show my passport, birth certificate, drivers licence, return bus ticket and to top it all off, the phone numbers and addresses of the friends I was going to visit! I think that is going a bit overboard. All this beefing up of the Can/US border is probably to stop pot from being smuggled out of BC...

      I think we should be able to get away without having a passport to travel between the US and Canada. Tracking of each individual traveller who is just going down to visit his friends is inconvienent and, I think, an unnecessary breach of my privacy.

      --
      There has been an error!
    6. Re:Phew! by lelitsch · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, you never have to show your passport if you travel between most of the 25 countries in the European Union.

    7. Re:Phew! by wantedman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As someone who lives in Michigan, this ruling does make a big difference. Canada is literally a 20 minute drive from where I live, unlike Japan.

      It's not unusal to hear of someone travelling to Windser on a friday night. It's not unusual for a Canadian to shop at our stores or working next to us.

      A 6 month wait is going to have a serous effect on both our economies.

    8. Re:Phew! by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      Oh, and the government hasn't taken away any freedom of movement with this ruling, by the way.

      When I can get a passport for free, then this will not be a limitation of freedom of movement. Currently, it costs $55 + $12 security surcharge + $10 for the required photos to obtain a passport. For some people, that's a lot of money. And it takes several weeks.

      How is suddenly deciding to charge someone $77 every ten years and requiring several weeks notice for travel between the U.S. and Canada---two countries that last I checked, were allies---not a restriction of freedom of movement?

      Nice troll, though.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:Phew! by necrognome · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't see why Americans should continue to be able to get away without even owning a passport when practically every other citizen of the civilized world carries one pretty much wherever they go. There's no reason for us to be smug about our backwardness.
      The U.S. also lacks a national "identity" card and state speech controls (although with more and more statists like you, who knows...). Feel free to get the fuck out of this free country and migrate to some "paradise" of state control that's more to your liking. Perhaps Singapore or China is right for you.
      --


      Let's get drunk and delete production data!
    10. Re:Phew! by JimBobJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't have any "right" to travel to another country and then re-enter without a passport.

      Right...well, perhaps not. But history has been on the side of paperless travel, in particular with regards to Canada. They only began immigration checks on the US-Canada border in the 1950s (I remember reading somewhere that there were riots when this started, it was very controversial.) Since about the 1980s Congress has mandated a passport for Americans travelling from countries from outside of the Western Hemisphere. A lot of that rule still stands...I can go to just about any Carribbean country with my birth certificate, and even my home country of Costa Rica decided to cash in on the tourist dollars and allow Americans to travel there with just a birth certificate. It's possible that, if the US never required Americans to have a passport for re-entry, than neither would have the Japanese for your trips.

      On a side note, apparently, the passport was created during World War I as a temporary document intended to prevent spies from crossing european borders. It was not a document viewed well...europeans were horrified by the idea that they would require documentation to go across borders. I'm amused by the bogus reasoning for its creation...it gives me a little satisfaction to know that people were as dumb then as they are now.

      There are certainly people stopped from going one way or another on the US-Canadian border, but it still has not been proven that there's an aggregate security increase from documented crossing than without documented crossings. It's possible our time would be better spent doing different types of security checks than documentation checks.

    11. Re:Phew! by Tony · · Score: 1

      The U.S. also lacks a national "identity" card and state speech controls (although with more and more statists like you, who knows...). Feel free to get the fuck out...

      No state speech controls? Try saying that on national broadcast TV.

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    12. Re:Phew! by MKalus · · Score: 1

      Actually you might want to visit europe again some time. You have to show a passport in your original port of entry, but after that you can pretty much move freely within the EU (Schengen Agreement).

      The same deal was (to my understanding) cut between the US, Canada and Mexico and is (I think) part of NAFTA as well.

      The fact that the US suddenly has the urge to absolutly control who enters the country from Canada and under what conditions reminds me a bit of trying to enter the formger GDR, and yes, I did that more than once.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    13. Re:Phew! by MKalus · · Score: 1

      The even bigger irony is that you can now travel without a passport between most European countries. Go figure.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    14. Re:Phew! by robertjw · · Score: 1

      On a side note, apparently, the passport was created during World War I as a temporary document intended to prevent spies from crossing european borders.

      Nice story. Amazing how many people don't see all of these infrigments on our freedoms sneaking up on them. Everyone 50 years old and younger doesn't remember a time without a passport. Now they are common. As long as the government sneaks stuff up on us gradually it will get through.

    15. Re:Phew! by zorglubxx · · Score: 1

      That's not really true. You dont need a passport (and they've usually taken out most of all passport controls) between countries that have signed the Schengen convention. There are currently 16 of them and they include Iceland and Norway which are not part of the EU.

      You do need to show a passport if you are travelling to the UK, Ireland as they havent signed onto the convention yet. More details here:

      http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fsj/freetra vel/frontiers/fsj_freetravel_schengen_en.htm

    16. Re:Phew! by Touisteur · · Score: 0

      I think you're wrong.

      Prussians (not germans) had had ID Cards for years before forcing French occupied people to have those famous ID Cards. That's why everybody in "Europe" was freaked out : Ennemies of a Nation who occupy your country, then forced people to have an ID Card.

      I might be wrong, but it seems that UK citizens don't have any ID Card. But of course, it's not part of Europe...

    17. Re:Phew! by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Speech != access.

      Broadcast law is flaky, to be sure, and definitely stupid, but it is *not* a good example of speech control. It's more akin to "fire in a theater" rules.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    18. Re:Phew! by tbjw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For as long as I can remember, and I believe since the foundation of the Irish Free State, it has not been necessary for Irish or British citizens to show any identification in travelling from Ireland to Britain or back again. This is because there is completely free travel between Ireland and Britain, not just for citizens. For much, if not most, of this time, some Irish nationals constituted a potential terrorist threat to Britain, much more so than those Canadians may pose the US.

      So the 'loophole' you refer to may be less of an accident and more of a common occurance between friendly countries than you believe.

    19. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't see why Americans should continue to be able to get away without even owning a passport when practically every other citizen of the civilized world carries one pretty much wherever they go. There's no reason for us to be smug about our backwardness.

      Backwardness? I don't consider it being smug to expect not to have to show a passport to re-enter my own god damn country. I'm an American citizen, born and bred in Ohio. If the idiot border guards are too stupid to tell I'm an American citizen then that's not my problem. Whoever instituted this policy should be fired and blackballed from working in the government. I don't need a passport to travel to Indiana or Kentucky, why should I need a passport to drive to Canada?

    20. Re:Phew! by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why Canada doesn't just become part of the USA and get it over with. They're basically like a bunch of US states up their anyway. Don't something like 90% of Canadian citizens live within 50 miles of the US border? It'd be much more convenient to both sides if we allowed them to become part of the United States.

    21. Re:Phew! by xander2032 · · Score: 1

      22 million Canadians live within 200 miles of the border. That's about three out of four Canadians.

      But um... Why would they want to be part of the US?? I don't think you'll find many Canadians who would want to live here.

      All of my Canadian friends are shocked by how much we pay for health care here. And they all hate the republicans. (Of course half us do too! lol)

    22. Re:Phew! by node+3 · · Score: 1

      There's no reason for us to be smug about our backwardness.

      Yet your entire post smugly promotes moving backwards.

    23. Re:Phew! by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

      The US media couldn't even show Janet Jackson's boob on TV. It was on the national evening news here in Canada in all it's jiggling glory.

      Take that you prudes!

    24. Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It occurs to me that this may be preparation for preventing draft dodgers from escaping.

  9. what? by zerkon · · Score: 2, Funny

    no more driving across the peace bridge to get plastered between the fragile ages of 19 and 21? I mean I could but I'd probly forget where I put my passport...


    aww who cares by then I'll be 21 anyway

    1. Re:what? by The+Hobo · · Score: 1

      The legal drinking age in Quebec and Alberta is 18, I'm sure someone in Vermont (or Montana) could verify this too ;-)

      --
      There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
    2. Re:what? by beckett · · Score: 1

      no you could definitely get wasted.

      your own country would just refuse to let you back in.

    3. Re:what? by hyu · · Score: 1

      18 in Quebec and Alberta. Besides, older friends are a good thing.

    4. Re:WHAT? by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 0

      I thought thats what passports where used for? Shows how ignorant I am.

      You must be new here. This is /., where bitching, complaining, and whining about everything that U.S. government does (especially when Republican led) entitles you to feel superior to all those Jesus-loving, Walmart-shopping, Red State hucklebucks who voted for GWB.

      And in case you didn't you know, here on /., all you have to do to appear enlightened and intelligent is be a cynic.

    5. Re:what? by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      Why drive all the way to Niagara falls when there are plenty of bars in Buffalo that no respectable person over the age of 21 would go to? (Is Mickey Rats still there?) Granted it is the best option if you are looking to get plastered, go to a nudie club, and then blow whatever remaining cash you have playing blackjack though.

    6. Re:what? by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... and the under-age drinking starts at 14-15 ...

    7. Re:what? by DarkMantle · · Score: 1, Funny

      no more driving across the peace bridge to get plastered between the fragile ages of 19 and 21? I mean I could but I'd probly forget where I put my passport...

      Yeah, but then you'd be coming back for REAL beer anyway. There's a joke in Canada about American beer.

      Q.) How's American beer like sex in a Canoe?
      A.) They're both f***ing close to water.

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    8. Re:what? by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      There's a joke in Canada about American beer.

      Q.) How's American beer like sex in a Canoe?
      A.) They're both f***ing close to water.


      Monty python if I am not mistaken.

    9. Re:what? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but then you'd be coming back for REAL beer anyway. There's a joke in Canada about American beer.

      Easy way to shut them up: order a Yuengling.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  10. The Good News: by elefantstn · · Score: 1

    We can look forward to the end of the "only 1 in 5 Americans has a passport" troll.

    --
    If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    1. Re:The Good News: by smcavoy · · Score: 1

      maybe you should read up on shit you comment on.
      The publication ban was put in place by a JUDGE not the party in power, to PROTECT that persons right to a fair trial. And guess what, it's NOT PERMANENT. geez.
      And just when the hell were we "more" free?

    2. Re:The Good News: by Lockz · · Score: 1

      "... that openly disallows the discussions of one of their most embarassing political follies ever ..." Nope. Gomery has only disallowed the publication of what's going on. You can attend, find out what's going on and discuss what's going on with your friends all you like. All that's going on is he doesn't want the media to publish it, so as not to taint any possible jury (criminal charges are pending). This fiasco is one of the most interesting things to Québecers so he doesn't want everyone to know everything by watching TV or reading the newspaper. But if you or a friend want to make the effort to find out what's going on and actually attend, good for you!

      --
      Life is the sport of champions. Those who lose, die.
    3. Re:The Good News: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "4. How is a persons right to a fair trial compromised by posting public transcripts?"

      They need an unbiased jury. If the case is discussed in the media it will develop bias, meaning that the jury will therefore be biased.

    4. Re:The Good News: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's possible (perhaps unlikely) that some of the implicated people in Canada's corruption scandal really are innocent, but will be so badly roasted in the "press" that they won't be able to make an effective case in their defense. The judge wants to give them that opportunity, and when the case is over then he'll hang them (as opposed to a poorly informed mob doing the hanging at the behest of opportunist and possibly truly guilty media and political parties).

      That's the theory anyway. The uninformed masses, whether in the U.S. or Canada, will probably never know the whole truth - and most corrupt apparachiks will probably survive. It would be good to throw some of the worst in prison and perhaps force the rest to be a little less obvious.

      Where was the press for the (decade?) that this went on? Oh that's right, in bed with the government. It may not be much of a judiciary, but if you can't trust the other 3 branches of government...

    5. Re:The Good News: by stcanard · · Score: 1
      Care to back off the FUD?

      A person's right to a fair trial is more important than my need to hear something this week instead of next week.

      Waiting to next week has no impact on my life, or that of any other Canadian. Impatience is a pretty small price to pay so that we can maintain the basis of our judicial system.

    6. Re:The Good News: by Nos. · · Score: 1

      1. its not about the judge being swayed, its about the jury
      2. The ban will be lifted after jury is sequestered
      3. Yes, because its in the interest of a fair trial
      4. See number 1
      5. Lets see, is the right of one person to a fair and impartial jury more important than my right to review records immediately after they are produced as evidence? I'd rather live in a country that ensures a fair trial, and lets the public wait so the trial can begin with an untainted jury releasing the records. Oh wait I do, I live in Canada.
      Before you get critical of it, you better understand the ban. Read a summary of it here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/time line.html

    7. Re:The Good News: by Malc · · Score: 1

      Which country are you referring too? The context of the story suggests Canada, but I can't think of an example that you're referring to. Unless of course you're being a troll (either through ignorance or just deliberately/sheer bloody-mindedness) and referring to yesterday's story.

    8. Re:The Good News: by smcavoy · · Score: 1

      so let me get this right. you want me to answer all your questions? How about this: READ THE FUCK UP ON IT.
      I have to admit # 2 is a real winner. "Just because a Judge is doing their job, is it ok?"

    9. Re:The Good News: by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Unless an important election is held this week when information released next week would be very pertinent...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    10. Re:The Good News: by Aumaden · · Score: 1
      Ok, by the numbers

      1. Why would a judge be swayed by public opinion? Isn't that the fear here, that public opinion will be bad against the current government?

      It has not about the judge, it's about the jurors. The judge doesn't want the pool of potential jurors being contaminated by hearsay.
      2. When will the ban be lifted? Will it be after the citizens vote in elections, perhaps?
      Probably as soon as the court either dismisses the case or determines that there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. Sometimes, if sensitive information is involved, a judge may choose to seal the records. I don't believe that is very common and most of the time only portions of the record are sealed ( eq.
      3. Just because a judge does it, it's okay?
      It's a condition of the press being admitted to the courtroom. Just as a jury is not to allowed discuss a case they are currently hearing or deliberating. This raises the question of whether bloggers are members of the press, whether blogging is "publishing", etc.
      4. How is a persons right to a fair trial compromised by posting public transcripts?
      You're assuming the transcript is accurate and is presented in context without the addition of the reporter's opinions. Courtroom transcripts can amount to hundreds of pages of text. The judge can direct the jury to disregard unsubstantiated testimony or evidence that is improperly acquired. That's much harder to do if that information has already become public knowledge.
      5. Is it worth protecting the right of one person to be protected from bad publicity if it keeps citizens uninformed about serious, deep running corruption?
      Alleged corruption. Notice how the media does always use that word? They might have video footage of the crime, but the perp is always the alleged whatever. "Innocent until proven guilty." (At least I don't believe Canada haa a Napoleonic justice system.)
      Cases have been overturned on appeal on the basis of a biased jury. These restrictions serve to protect both the defendant (should they turn out to be innocent) and the prosecution's case.
    11. Re:The Good News: by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you want me to cross the Pond and end up in a country where they have more video cameras than people?

      If your talking about Britain I think Its worth pointing out that the population is much denser than America. Most people in Britain live in cities, I would liek to see a comparison of major american cities with British ones. I suspect the number of cameras is fairly similar.

    12. Re:The Good News: by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The publication ban was put in place by a JUDGE not the party in power, to PROTECT that persons right to a fair trial. And guess what, it's NOT PERMANENT. geez. And just when the hell were we "more" free?

      Isn't there an election that will be over before the ban is lifted, and isn't the trial about political shenanigans? Sounds like it benefits the party in power to me.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    13. Re:The Good News: by smcavoy · · Score: 1

      Isn't there a thing called the internet where you could CHECK YOUR FUCKING FACTS?
      I noticed you cut out the top part of my comment, I will include it here for you:
      maybe you should read up on shit you comment on.

    14. Re:The Good News: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't there an election that will be over before the ban is lifted, and isn't the trial about political shenanigans? Sounds like it benefits the party in power to me.

      In order:
      - No, there is no election. Even if one were called today, it would not occur before the ban is lifted. The ban is likely to be lifted tomorrow, but May 2 at the latest.
      - Yes, the trial is about political shenanigans
      - No, if anything the ban could possibly cost the party in power the next election, because it draws attention to the testimony in question

    15. Re:The Good News: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. It is not the judge, but the potential jurors that would be swayed by media (not public) opinion.

      2. The ban will be lifted most likely after no more jurors will be required for selection and sequestering. Given that appeals are possible, this could take awhile.

      3. At least the judge is not a politician (like GWB) so it gives him little benefit to alter public opinion unless he is secretly aiding a political party (and if he does, he better make sure his striped undies are clean)

      4. Because fer chrissakes, most Canadians are educated and can read and follow the news. To get an uninformed Canadian for a jury pool would be not only difficult, it would require choosing less educated ones (not such a good idea)

      5. Yes. It is worth protecting the rights of one person. Remember that when _you_ are the person whose rights need protecting.

      As for this whole elections thing. Do you really think we Canadians are that naive about our elected officials? The only reason the liberals aren't all retiring to become potato farmers by now is that the other parties would be far worse.

      NDP - forget it - they got into Ontario once and their performance there will guarantee it is a chilly day in hell before they get back into power in Ontario or in Ottawa.

      BLOC - the Quebec whiner party - impossible to form a national government - heaven help the poor people of 'la belle province' if they ever manage to secede.

      Conservative - mostly ex-Reform party (not the progressive-conservative party of old) - the Conservative (cough Reform cough) party scares hell out of (little L) libertarian Canadians as their social values really don't jibe with the majority socially progressive view. And without the libertarian vote, the Conservatives are dead in the water.

      So, until the Conservative party can be made to look like it is no longer under the control of the religious right (go Belinda go), it is the Liberals' turn for now, scandal or not. And besides, the scandal was more about offending Quebec (by implying Ottawa was able to bribe Quebec to stay in Canada) than any economic impact. As liberal boondoggles go, it was one of the cheaper ones.

      At least the Liberal scandal cost the country's economy a lot less than what GWB and the American right wingers did to the poor American economy in the interest of also weakening its civil liberties. Certainly that is a lesson not lost on Canadians when looking at our own right wingers.

      In any case, since the Liberals are only a minority government, we are keeping them on a short leash, and they know it (and we like it). Canada's economy does better anyways when the government is unable to interfere with ridiculous new laws. Maybe you Americans should try it sometime.... Might do us all a world of good.

    16. Re:The Good News: by SlothB77 · · Score: 1

      "All that's going on is he doesn't want the media to publish it" They may prefer to introduce these issues through the standard main stream media channels, than let it be introduced to the public through blogger leaks. Either way, it will be introduced to the public. The dispersal of information can no longer be controlled. And I do believe this Adscam story has already been leaked

    17. Re:The Good News: by danheskett · · Score: 1

      They need an unbiased jury. If the case is discussed in the media it will develop bias, meaning that the jury will therefore be biased.

      Discussion = bias?

      When did that become true? If that is true, then why not seal 100% of all court records, all the time, until everyone involved dies? Right?

  11. returning americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Americans who crossed freely into Canada will be unable to return to the United States without a passport Damn, does that mean we're stuck with them then?

    1. Re:returning americans by RGTAsheron · · Score: 0

      Your welcome to all of them you can take.

    2. Re:returning americans by ozbird · · Score: 1

      I assume it means that you can't freely return to the United States. I'm sure the Canadians would have no hesitation in deporting any Americans attempting to emmigrate to Canada via this loophole.

      I suspect this is spindoctoring in action - the real issue is preventing US citizens from leaving the country without their passport in the first place.

    3. Re:returning americans by PeteQC · · Score: 1

      Well, you're gonna be screwed. There is a recent law in Canada that prohibits to ask for Refugee's status if you travelled by the U.S.A. to come to Canada.

      Maybe you can try to enter into a terminal airport and live there.

      --
      Montreal - Best city to live in!
    4. Re:returning americans by bbc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Damn, does that mean we're stuck with them then?"

      There's always the catapult.

    5. Re:returning americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "Damn, does that mean we're stuck with them then?"

      Think of it as an investment opportunity. Obviously we'll intern them in Alberta where they'll fit in with the local community easiest, and because it's Alberta the camps will be run by the private sector. You've got a chance at the ground floor here. Kinda like running a toxic waste dump.

    6. Re:returning americans by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · · Score: 1

      Well, we have Celine Dion in Vegas so we are accepting trades.

      --
      I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
    7. Re:returning americans by rynthetyn · · Score: 1

      Oh, we have plenty of retired Canadians down in Florida clogging up the highways, perhaps you'd like to swap?

      --
      Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
    8. Re:returning americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans who crossed freely into Canada will be unable to return to the United States without a passport

      This is just a necessary step to halt the flow of illegal American immigrants into the United States.
    9. Re:returning americans by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1
      I believe this is actually part of UN International law which states that refugees must apply for refugee status in the first country the hit.

      This is one of the main reasons why there has been such a fuss in the UK over illegal asylum seekers in recent times as most of the asylum seekers come from Eastern Europe and the middle east and go through numerous countries such as Italy and France before coming to the over-friendly country we call the UK.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
  12. Say goodbye by Dark+Coder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Goodbye, my Canadian friends."

    "Goodbye, those funky round flat bacon, hockey teams.."

    "Goodbye, to those maple leaf brothers."

    The door will go from wide-open to slightly ajar....

    (sigh)

    1. Re:Say goodbye by neoform · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it's sad but true, the Bush administration is alienating canada like no other administration in US history..

      from the beef ban to the tarifs on soft wood, now tightening the border only makes canadians not want to vacation in the US.. or for that matter have anything to do with americans.. which is a shame really.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    2. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'd have no problem with this were I to need a passport to enter http://kenlayne.com/new_map.jpg Jesusland. I'd never have to use it, except maybe to go to New Orleans.

      When I read stuff like this I can't help but hope Canada (and the rest of the world) realizes that there's 49% of us who shake our heads at most of this administration's decisions.

    3. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Canadians aren't the only ones they're alienating. I flew over to the US from an EU state on Sunday for a 2 week business trip and had to get my fingers scanned and a photo taken on entry into the country. I'm really very unhappy about being treated this way, and I'm sure everyone I was queueing with felt the same.

      America has ceased to be a country that others might aspire to. Other countries have experienced terrorism for many decades without becoming so draconian, so it's funny that the US, the supposed land of the free, overreacted so dramatically.

      It's a crying shame really...

    4. Re:Say goodbye by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      it's sad but true, the Bush administration is alienating Canada like no other administration in US history..

      Replace 'Canada' with 'The World' and you're still quite on mark.

    5. Re:Say goodbye by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      More than ever in US history?

      So the invasion of Canada in the War of 1812 and the burning of York didn't alienate the Canadians any? And before anyone goes...but we burned Washington!

      No, Canada didn't.

      I know that it is popular to think that the burning of the White House and the Capital Building in Washington D.C. was either carried out by Canadian soldiers or by units from Canada, but that isn't true.

      Units from the British territories in what now is Canada did capture Detroit and other Forts and settlements on the Western Frontier of the United States in the War of 1812, but the units that took part in the Invasion of Maryland were not Canadian.

      The Invasion of Maryland or the Chesapeake occurred after the surrender of Napoleon in 1814. Maj. Gen. Robert Ross was given the duty of leading the expedition to the Chesapeake in May 1814, a duty for which he was personally chosen by fellow Irishman the Duke of Wellington because of Ross' leadership abilities in the Iberian peninsula campaigns.

      Ross arrived in the Chesapeake in mid-August with the 4th, 21st, 44th, and 85th Regiments of Foot. Once these troops were added to the Royal Marines provided by commander-in-chief Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane, Ross could call on around 4,000 troops for operations against the Americans.

      The Units
      Ross arrived in the Chesapeake in mid-August with the 4th, 21st, 44th, and 85th Regiments of Foot.

      None of these units came from Canada nor were raised from Canadian regions.

      The 4th was a "Kings Own" Regiment from England

      The 21st was and is Scottish

      The 44th was from East Essex

      Looking around, it appears that some Swiss units took part in the War of 1812 against the United States at Plattsburg NY in 1814 and the Siege of Fort Erie

      Two Royal Marine units also took part in the attack on Washington
      Corps of Colonial Marines, Royal Marines and 3rd Royal Marine Battalion

      They burned Washington in the late evening of August 23, 1814, then the next morning a Hurricane or Tropic Storm hit the region and dispersed the British forces and put out the fire, there are reports that a Tornado came down in the center of the burnt out Capital Building.

    6. Re:Say goodbye by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...the Bush administration is alienating canada like no other administration in US history..

      Oh, I bet Mr. Madison has the first prize in that department. And check out who the VP was :)

      --
      What?
    7. Re:Say goodbye by smegball · · Score: 1

      They alienate us so much... I get so frustrated it makes me want to go club a baby seal.

    8. Re:Say goodbye by anaesthetica · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's also a crying shame that the al-Qaeda cell that planned the 9/11 attacks was operationally based and then supported in Germany, and EU state. We can't just demand fingerprints from all the Muslim/Arab EUers, so we have to ask for it from all. It sucks that a few terrorists will ruin free and open travel between countries, but that's the deal.

    9. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nevar Forget!!!!

    10. Re:Say goodbye by xander2032 · · Score: 1

      Ahhhhh... So that explains the seal clubbing! I always wondered about that. ;)

    11. Re:Say goodbye by MKalus · · Score: 1

      Or that they took flying lessons in the US and actually got issued new visas AFTER they flew the planes in the WTC.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    12. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, you can replace "is alienating" by "has alienated". And it's not just the administration, because of my dark skin, I'm frequently subjected to racism by many Americans who come to visit Canada. Of course, the other Canadians find these visitors quite disgusting.

    13. Re:Say goodbye by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      True, and they are effectively destroying tourism. I used to like spending time in the US but there's no chance I'll go there again anytime soon just to be treated like a criminal. Right now there are really cheap flights to the US (like EUR 200) because nobody wants to go there.

      And I was actually berated for being European (on multiple occasions) when I was in the US just before the Iraq war.

    14. Re:Say goodbye by Rac3r5 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      You know something, you are so right.

      I used to buy stuff from the states because its cheaper than Canada. When I go to the states, to pick up electronic gadgets (e.g. mp3 player) I get harassed by the US border customs every time I enter. They ask me the same questions over and over again, what is your reason for coming (normal question), where do you work, what is your occupation, when did you buy this car, do you own this car, how long have you owned this car, have you ever been denied entry into the US. Can you turn your car off, give me the keys and open your trunk. This might sound something routine, but my caucasian friends/co-workers don't get bothered at all. The serbian girl who works with me told me that she this has never happened to her, and she has a serbain accent and all. My other colored friends have all told me that they get harassed as well. Well guess what, now I don't buy stuff from the States anymore. A number of us avoid a stop over at the States while travelling by plane. This dumb attitude by the US, doesn't help their already crappy image in Canada.

    15. Re:Say goodbye by 21mhz · · Score: 1

      It's worse when you're NOT granted a visa. We Russians are treated as potential defectors by immigration officials at the embassy; the default is to refuse entry. This was the case with me a year ago when we planned a business trip for my company, and the US government has my fingerprints now, even though I've never had a chance to visit the US!
      Coincidentally, I go for a second attempt in just a few hours today. To be honest, all this fuss makes me lose interest in visiting or having any business around US. If they refuse me for the second time, I won't regret much.

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    16. Re:Say goodbye by cliffski · · Score: 1

      couldnt agree more. I got married in the states, but you wouldnt catch me going there now, I dont like to be treated like a criminal beacuse Im not a good loyal american like Timothy mcVeigh.
      If I fancy seeing american soil, Ill holiday in Canada, all the great countryside and no gun crime. Or I'll holiday in Italy which is closer, and the customs guys won't treat me like dirt.
      Must really suck to have shares in US tourism these days.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    17. Re:Say goodbye by sasha328 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The US no longer has provisions for TRANSIT either. For those who don't know TRANSIT means you only stop in a certain country because you need to change planes. You actually have no intention of visiting that country, just passing through. This usually means you have to stay at the airport.
      Well, the US doesn't have this provision. You land at the airport, you HAVE to go through customs and check out your baggage. This takes a lot of time, and last trip I made (october 2003) made me miss my connecting flights because my travel agent didn't factor this into the equation.
      So now, when I want to go to Canada, instead of taking the shortest route (a stop over in Hawaii or LA), I have to go via North Asia somewhere. Very disappointing. Also, like the previous poster, I don't want anyone to have my finger prints or photos taken.

    18. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is wrong with the beef ban? It was put in place because Canadian ranchers were exporting cattle that were INFECTED with a deadly disease. It is your fault on that one, buddy. Would you want to have contaminated beef floating around your country and making its way onto your plate?

    19. Re:Say goodbye by horza · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it. I was looking forwards to visiting New York and Las Vegas for extended holidays but cancelled both because I've no intention of being treated like a criminal. Someone told me I could fly to Canada and drive down to New York to avoid having my privacy raped but now even that is no longer going to be an option. The phrase "Land of the Free" has turned into a sardonic joke. Instead I will be travelling to Malaysia and Thailand. Perhaps they will apreciate my hard earned cash?

      Phillip.

    20. Re:Say goodbye by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      it's sad but true, the Bush administration is alienating canada like no other administration in US history..

      I beg to differ: James Madison's administration was even more hostile.

    21. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful when you stare into the abyss, dude.

    22. Re:Say goodbye by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      "the Bush administration is alienating canada like no other administration in US history" And you think the Canadian government is not alienating the Bush administration? The way Canada is going, I'm glad if there is an alienation. From my experience, many Canadians in western Canada are highly disenthralled with their political leadership but really can't do much because after all, why would anyone of importance not live in the East? There are so many people in Quebec and Ontario compared with western Canada that the West cannot do much politically. Canada's government is only on the facade representative. Their government is a farce of democracy (just look at how their last prime minister was "elected"). It is like having New York City and Boston have all the say in how our country is run (they are great places but definately not representive of the whole nation). You may not like Pres. Bush or agree with his political views but I think you'd be lying to yourself if you said that our country would be better under people like Kerry and Kennedy (then we'd be almost like Canada, including the really high taxes).
      As far as politicians go, Pres. Bush is quite moderate. Of course he has his strong conservative points but overall he is about as moderate as any president we've had recently.

      About the Canada passport situation: My wife and I were visiting her family in Canada. Let's just say that you should never forget your birth certificates. We had quite the time getting back into the States. "How do we know you are Americans?" and "You'll have to come into the office." After they roughed us up a little they put us on their "dangerous watch-list" and let us come back into the U.S. That incident made us want to get passports just to make the whole process easier. We wouldn't have had much hassle if we had had our birth certificates, but even then it can be a bit of a process. Passports are much easier but requiring them seems a little extreme. They're just as easy to forge as birth certificates.

    23. Re:Say goodbye by six11 · · Score: 1
      it's sad but true, the Bush administration is alienating canada like no other administration in US history..

      Oh, I dunno. James Madison actually invaded Canada, which seems a bit more alienating. Point taken though.

    24. Re:Say goodbye by Damvan · · Score: 1

      You realize, of course, that regardless of whether or not you have passports, you will be on their "dangerous watch-list" for the rest of your lives? And it WILL become an issue everytime you try to fly, or leave/enter the country. All thanks to your "moderate" Pres. Bush.

      And I am not lying to myself when I say that we would be better with Kerry. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am delusional!

      Asshat.

    25. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to save you from a potentially dangerous vacation in Toronto, some Canadian cities have quite high rates of gun crime. Although, like the UK, it's mostly confined to the underworld (and not us surface races ;) there's enough bad neighbourhoods in our cities that you still have to be careful.

      But come visit, it's hard for UK tourists to have a bad time in Canada. People here love the accents, even chavs'.

    26. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah! I love hearing westerners rant. The fact is, it's in their best interests to keep the Liberals in power. Do you think people in Ontario would mind keeping our "equalization" payments for ourselves? We'd have one of the highest standards of living on the continent, instead of subsidizing postal offices and paved roads in NS and MB that serve hamlets with a dozen people. I completely understand why Alberta would want to get the Conservatives (or whatever their current name) into power, but BC? Sask? Manitoba? Puhleeze. They're complaining because they see all the unfair attention Quebec gets when it throws a hissy fit. And sorry, the representational numbers used to fill parliament seats aren't perfect, but it sure as hell beats a couple of small rural ridings holding the rest of the population hostage.

      To use your own analogy, it would be like the small towns of New York state telling New York city that it shouldn't be allowed to have so many representatives or big conventions, and oh yeah, send more money. I'm not an urban elitist - I grew up on a farm and have a good understanding of urban/rural dynamics and mutual dependence. And that's why I know the sour grapes of some westerners is just so much horseshit.

      You obviously know nothing of democracy to call Canada's a "farce". I might even be insulted if it came from someone who's country wasn't rapidly descending into a crypto-fascist state.

    27. Re:Say goodbye by Bullfish · · Score: 1

      And the way shrub got elected in 2000 wasn't? With the FBI seeking expanded powers (today's news)and the rise of theocracy in the US the next few years will make Canada's community oriented democracy the best thing on the planet. Take note, the conservative alliance party will never get into power regardless of the liberals foibles until they lose the so-cons. That's why the conservative high water mark in the polls has never been higher than 30 per cent

    28. Re:Say goodbye by Rayonic · · Score: 1
      America has ceased to be a country that others might aspire to.

      Because, you know, America-bashing never happened before George W. Bush. Just ignore the Reagan years, the Vietnam years, and the French.

      Other countries have experienced terrorism for many decades without becoming so draconian

      Other countries have experienced terrorism for many decades without doing anything about it. Indeed, they worked to maintain the status quo in the Middle East.
    29. Re:Say goodbye by codegen · · Score: 1

      I'm on the steering committee for a IEEE international workshop. We traditionally alternate between NA and EU. The continuing problems with US immigration especially with the problems in getting temp visas for some EU and Aisian attendees have started some of us rethinking these policies. We may have to start restricting the NA locations to Canada, Mexico and Latin America.

      --
      Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
    30. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Us tourism is doing mighty fine.

    31. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you are unable to take care of your own fucking Arabs (9/11, shoe-bomber)then we will have to fingerprint you all.

      This is stil land of the free - if you live here, that is.

    32. Re:Say goodbye by tsotha · · Score: 1
      You know, it's funny you should say that. Years ago a friend of mine was flying from the US to Frankfurt by way of Paris. When she got to Paris they wouldn't let her go the couple hundred yards to German customs.

      "You see," he told her, "you're going through France. You're not allowed to be in France."

      After making her waste the whole day in France they finally let her through (I think they were waiting for a bribe, actually). I guess they didn't know what else to do with her.

    33. Re:Say goodbye by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Because, you know, America-bashing never happened before George W. Bush. Just ignore the Reagan years, the Vietnam years, and the French.


      in case you didn't know, the French were USA's closest allies for a long time. And Europe and USA were really close during the 80's and 90's. I remember than when I was a kid, people _admired_ USA. Everyone felt that Europe and USA were friends and that both respected the other. Of course there were disagreements now and then, but overall the two seemed really close.

      But now things are different. Europe and USA (and Europeans and Americans) seem to hate each other. And the change has been really swift! Yes, It happened during GWB. During Clinton, Bush Senior and Reagan things were alot better. Things started going downhill after GWB became president. And it went downhill FAST.

      Other countries have experienced terrorism for many decades without doing anything about it. Indeed, they worked to maintain the status quo in the Middle East.


      What does Mid East have to do with IRA and Basque separatists for example? Both of those have terrorized various European countries for a long time.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    34. Re:Say goodbye by pyota · · Score: 1

      define terrorism. 900 people get HIV every day but do we ever hear anything about that .. perhaps because they aren't american or investment bankers.

    35. Re:Say goodbye by mykdavies · · Score: 1

      Amen to that.

      I've had numerous holidays in the States; my last trip being a couple of years ago to visit New York to see Ground Zero. But that really *was* my last visit -- I'm never going back to a country that wants to treat me like a criminal.

      I've now been discovering that Europe has much more geographical variety than I'd ever thought. Thanks Mr. Bush!

      --
      The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
    36. Re:Say goodbye by Clansman · · Score: 1

      " Other countries have experienced terrorism for many decades without becoming so draconian"

      That's because this is only superficially related to terrorism - the threat of which is really rather small.

      However, like all dodgy governments throughout history, you take your opportunities where they arise to roll back excessive freedoms.

    37. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the IRA part funded by Americans no less.

    38. Re:Say goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other countries have experienced terrorism for many decades without doing anything about it.

      What the fuck are you talking about? Every single country in Europe has had huge successes in fighting extremist and terrorist organisations. You are ridiculing the many people who died in these struggles.

    39. Re:Say goodbye by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Oh, and when, exactly, did other countries suffer 3,000 dead to terrorists in one day?

      So, it's the death's per day that count? The US has co-ordinated and funded terrorism (war-by-proxy during the cold war) that killed many many many times more people than that. The group that carried out 9-11 was born from that, as was the Talliban that protected them.

      For fucks sake, the INNOCENT (non-combatant) death tool in Iraq is 15,000. That's 10 tower-blocks worth if we are talking numbers here.

      So you can take your 3,000 dead and stick them where the sun doesn't shine. Your acting like a bully who cried when some little kid hit back. Get over it and stop allowing people to use 9-11 to manipulate you. It used to be "think of the children", now it's "what about the terrorists".

    40. Re:Say goodbye by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      You are woefully ignorant of the anti-Americanism that has flourished in Europe since the end of WWII, and especially since the end of the Cold War.

      And the retaliatory anti-Europianism pales in comparison.

    41. Re:Say goodbye by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1
      I don't realy understand your story:


      When she got to Paris they wouldn't let her go the couple hundred yards to German customs.


      It's more than a couple of hundred yards from Paris to the German frontier.


      If she was in transit she would never leave the airport, so never have to pass customs or immigration.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    42. Re:Say goodbye by tsotha · · Score: 1
      As I understand it she had to pass through some minor post of German bureaucracy before bording the flight to Frankfurt - either it was customs or she thought it was. In any event, that small distance was the part of France she apparently didn't have authorization to be in.

      We were at a loss, since we'd sent over a team to support our product and she was the entire technical part of the team (which mostly consisted of useless syncophants). They were threatening to send her back to the US, where our management was going to put her on a direct flight to Frankfurt (what is that, 40 straight hours of flying?).

    43. Re:Say goodbye by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      You are woefully ignorant of the anti-Americanism that has flourished in Europe since the end of WWII, and especially since the end of the Cold War.

      Considering that I live here and I can witness the reactions of ther egural people firsthand, I fail to see how that could be true. Were there disagreements between the two? Sure! Were there some left-wing nutjobs who thought USA was the devil? Sure! How did the regural folks feel? They LIKED USA! Yes, they really did. But that is not the case anyore. And it happened very fast.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  13. how hard would it be eh? by b17bmbr · · Score: 4, Funny

    to figure out eh who is a canadian eh? im mean eh, it's aboot national secoority eh. so, if it makes the US safer, eh, then it should be okay eh.

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    1. Re:how hard would it be eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't sound like a Canadian. Are you using eh improperly on purpose?

    2. Re:how hard would it be eh? by nacturation · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh... my... god, y'all!!! That is like, *SO* totally Canadian shizzle my come back now, yuh heahr?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:how hard would it be eh? by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
      to figure out eh who is a canadian eh? im mean eh, it's aboot national secoority eh. so, if it makes the US safer, eh, then it should be okay eh.

      Someday I will figure out where this 'oot' thing comes from. I've lived in Canada for 30 years and I don't know anyone who speaks like that.

      'Eh', sure, that's very common. 'Aboot', I only hear in references to Canadians I've apparently never met.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    4. Re:how hard would it be eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never been to Nuufinland, eh?

    5. Re:how hard would it be eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's from Newfoundland, which makes up less than two percent of our population, and the people who speak like that would probably be less than one percent.

    6. Re:how hard would it be eh? by Iago515 · · Score: 1

      I've actually heard ONE person say 'aboot'. She was from Ontario (I can't remember where) but we were in Victoria at the time. I pointed at her and started laughing very hard. I think she was a bit offended. I had lived in Canada for about 34 years at the time (i.e. my entire life).

      --
      Take note, take note, O world,

      To be direct and honest is not safe.

    7. Re:how hard would it be eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shh! We've spread this misinformation to Americans so we can catch them when they try to pass themselves off as Canadians.

    8. Re:how hard would it be eh? by Impeesa · · Score: 1

      Someday I will figure out where this 'oot' thing comes from. I've lived in Canada for 30 years and I don't know anyone who speaks like that.

      Yeah, and someone who's lived in Japan for 30 years will never notice that they don't know the difference between the phonemes we know as L and R. If you play around making noises, you'll find that the only difference between L and R is tongue position - an L sound involves the tongue touching the roof of your mouth just behind the teeth, while an R sound has the tongue touching about halfway back. Try moving your tongue back a bit for Ls and forward a bit for Rs until they reach the same central point, and you're one step closer to a convincing Japanese accent. Corollary: it's not really true to say Japanese uses the same sound for L and R - it's more accurate to say they don't have L or R, but they do have a phoneme we don't for which L or R are equally good approximations.

      There's a point to that: When you learn language as a small child, you learn to pronounce the phonemes that your language requires. Anything else is much harder to pick up as an adult. The 'ou' diphthong as we Canadians pronounce it (house, about) is completely unique to Canadian English (to the best of my knowledge, no other known language uses it - IANALinguist, though). If you try saying those two common words out loud as you normally would, and then with, say, an exaggerated Texan accent (or exaggerated Australian, either works) you can hear the difference quite clearly. Now approach it from the other direction: someone who speaks American English and is unfamiliar with that sound, when they try to repeat it, is going to come up with something that more closely resembles "aboot."

      And now you know.

    9. Re:how hard would it be eh? by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

      several years ago the wife and i went to BC. went to victoria island and vacnouver. victoria island had to be the most beautiful place on earth. we noticed they said "aboot". the other thing we noticed is that smoking required by law, or so it seemed.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    10. Re:how hard would it be eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh.. its vancouver island, yes victoria is on it and vancouver isnt, that still doesnt change basic north american geography

    11. Re:how hard would it be eh? by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

      my bad. it is vancouver island. also, can't help but laugh at the straights of juan de fuca. i kept aksing my wife "juan de fuca?". of course, she said no. women!!

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
  14. right on by Weh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    yeah, the global war on terror is used as an excuse for the current regimes totalitarian tendencies. You americans better read 1984.

    1. Re:right on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read it. Hmm...pretty much no relationship to what's going on in the US. On the other hand, if /. is your only exposure to the "truth" abou the US political system, I can see why you have such a skewed view of it.

    2. Re:right on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck 1984. Read Homage To Catalonia.

    3. Re:right on by mikael · · Score: 1

      Or read the Conversatron

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:right on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, groupthink, propaganda, frequent imperialist wars, the assualt on civil liberties (FCC, Patriot Act), calling people who do not support the war "seditious" or "unpatriotic", and etc. are NOT AT ALL like what happened in 1984.

    5. Re:right on by fenris_23 · · Score: 2, Insightful


      How do you think our government came up with these crazy ideas?

      thanks England.

    6. Re:right on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, the global war on terror is used as an excuse for the current regimes totalitarian tendencies. You americans better read 1984.

      Maybe if you Canucks would stop allowing so many arabs into your country then we wouldn't have to go to these measures. As it stands I'm glad the US sealing that border.

    7. Re:right on by VoidWraith · · Score: 1

      What the hell is wrong with Arabs? Just cause they look different from you and many of them worship a different religion, that means we shouldn't let them in the country? Are you a member of the KKK?

    8. Re:right on by Marthisdil · · Score: 1

      yeah, the global war on terror is used as an excuse for the current regimes totalitarian tendencies. You americans better read 1984.

      Let us know when you stop being a Socialistic Frenchy then maybe we'll care.

    9. Re:right on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashthink, propaganda, frequent imperialist conquering of web servers, assault on taste (Who PICKS these damn color schemes?), calling people who don't oppose the war "idiots" and "trolls", and et cetera are NOT AT ALL like what happens every day on Slashdot...

    10. Re:right on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Groupthink, propaganda, slander casually thrown about. At first I thought you were talking about /. which is actually spot on!

    11. Re:right on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don`t they smell and have sex with camels? and oh yeah try being a woman in thier country some time...

  15. Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by CrazyTalk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I grew up in Buffalo, NY so going back and forth to Canada was as regular an occurence as going to the mall. Only once was I asked for any kind of ID whatsoever, and that was because I was with a British citizen. Usually they would just ask you "Citizen of what country" and if you said "USA" they would wave you in.

  16. yet another reason by crabpeople · · Score: 5, Insightful

    to NOT travel to the USA

    come to canada instead - all of the beauty - none of the ph34r

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    1. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The fact that Canada has laws against opinions that are contrary to popularly accepted historical views is enough to scare me from going.

      How Canada treated Ernst Zundel should be enough to send a chill down anyone's spine, no matter if you share his extermist views or nor.

    2. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ernst Zundel is a holocaust denier. Please illuminate me with "accepted historical views" that are illegal in Canada.

      Fucking trolls.

    3. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, because Howard Stern was allowed to say whatever he wanted, and there was _no_ hysterical reaction in the grand ol' US of A, huh? Or Janet Jackson flashed a NIPPLE for 2 milliseconds and the Earth almost stopped spinning while the poor starve unnoticed? Yeah, I'm moving to the USA.

      Keep waving that flag and saluting, jackass, we'll be watching your decline on TV and cheering!!!

    4. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? Just because he is a holocaust denier does not mean he is entitled to his views? Just what is your idea of freedom? Freedom to say what everyone else is saying, but jail for those who deviate?

      Just who is the "fucking troll" now?

    5. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, where did I say I was a US citizen, jackass? Where did I say that the US was a more free country, moron?

      You really are retarded to think that anyone who isn't a fanboy of Canada is automatically a US citizen.

    6. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did I say you were in the US? Any country that has people like you in it, I will cheer when you disappear off the face of the Earth!

    7. Re:yet another reason by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      "Just because he is a holocaust denier does not mean he is entitled to his views?"

      yes thats what it means. racism should not be tollerated.

      freedom includes freedom from hate. see in other countries, the interpretation of a law is how laws are enforced, not how they are literally to the word translated. hiding behind the cloak of "freedom" is kinda what makes america, america.

      "Just who is the "fucking troll" now?"

      still you

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    8. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said I should keep "waiving that flag" and watching "our demise".

      Its amazing how mentioning a few undeniable facts can degenerate into name calling and pathetic ad-hominems.

    9. Re:yet another reason by inkey+string · · Score: 1

      Cite these "popularly accepted historical views". Or shut up.

      Holocaust denial (which was Zundel's cup of tea) is hardly a "popularly accepted historical view".

    10. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should it not be tolerated?

      Should we also not tolerate people who do not support major public policy iniatives, people who do not support current foreign policy, or people who do not like the current government?

      I think racism is bad, but I would rather have a few neo-nazi nutballs than a whole government set up to ensure that no one gets offended by unpopular speech.

      It is also interesting that you call someone a troll for not agreeing with you. Sorta shows how your argument is laid out.

    11. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As if its not blatantly obvious, but to appease your request..

      Most people, upon widely agreed interpretation of the facts, agree that millions of jews and many numerous others died in what is termed the Holocaust during World War II by Adolf Hitler's Third Reich in Germany.

      Ernst Zundel expressed views contrary to these popularly accepted historical views and as such has been jailed under the pretense that he is a threat to national security.

      Do I agree with Ernst? Hell no! However, I still support his right to express his views as long as his views do not turn into actions of violence.

    12. Re:yet another reason by micromuncher · · Score: 1

      Um there are bears, moose, and liberals so plenty of ph34r all around.

      --
      /\/\icro/\/\uncher
    13. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by 2008 Americans who crossed freely into Canada will be unable to return to the United States without a passport.

      I fail to see the problem here, now if only McDonalds won't let me back in if I eat at another restaurant.

    14. Re:yet another reason by giesen · · Score: 1

      But that's exactly what he was advocating. By denying the holocaust, he was trying to incite violence and hate against Jews. The same thing Hitler did.

    15. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By denying the holocaust, he was trying to incite violence and hate against Jews.

      By inventing WMDs, George W Bush was trying to incite violence against Iraqis. Should he be imprisoned too?

    16. Re:yet another reason by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Yeah, because Howard Stern was allowed to say whatever he wanted, and there was _no_ hysterical reaction in the grand ol' US of A, huh? Or Janet Jackson...

      Yeah, and I for one am glad they were thrown in jail.

      Oh wait...

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    17. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    18. Re:yet another reason by LesPaul75 · · Score: 1

      Not to be mean, but the fact that someone would even bother to say something like, "Come to Canada, it's beautiful, it's great, really, etc...," pretty much says it all. No one says "Come check out America for a change! It's really nice here, honest!" That's because Americans are too busy arguing about the constant flood of illegal immigrants and silly passport laws -- like the one in this article -- that are designed to keep people out of the country.

    19. Re:yet another reason by bigberk · · Score: 1

      and while you're here eh how about buying some canadian dollars or other canadian investments. Unlike the US government, our government has a very healthy debt position, the currency is stable against other world currencies (instead of dropping 30% like the USD) and our resource rich economy grows with energy crises.

    20. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. America needs tourism just as much as anyone else. The only difference is your southern neighbor thinks it's their god-given right to undercut your wages, so you've got a very large segment of the population that's absolutely xenophobic about letting foreign nationals in. You prefer all your tourism to come from other states, and most of it does, contributing to the incredibly low level of knowledge about other nations and cultures among Americans (a common sentiment expressed by my American friends is 'why travel? everything's in the US'). America is becoming such an unwelcome place for tourists/students/suits that pretty soon (like in the next administration) you'll be spamming the world with your Mickey Mouse and Gotham city ads.

    21. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're afraid of liberals? Small "L" liberals?? You read/watch too much FoxNews.

    22. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, Ernst Zundel? HE WAS EXPELLED FROM THE U.S. TO CANADA AFTER THE STATES OF LOUISIANA, MONTANA, AND UTAH DIDN"T WANT HIM!!! The US FBI and Immigration service also repeatedly refused him refugee status, or any kind of citizenship!!! He was deported to Canada, his point of entry. He wasn't BORN in Canada either, and wasn't a Canadian citizen! He was then deported from Canada back to Germany (where he was a citizen) and was promptly arrested by German autorities upon arrival (they excorted him off the plane), on charges of spreading hate literature, being a Neo-Nazi, promoting the literature of Adolph Hitler, and distributing hate literature (he crossed way way over free speach lines, advocating people killing ethnic minorities, etc.). The German authorities *had* a lot of information on him, got a lot more from Interpol, the FBI, the RCMP, and the U.S. I.N.S.!!! (so there!) If that's your reason for not visiting Canada --you are a Zundel supporter-- then I thank you for not visiting Canada.

    23. Re:yet another reason by Kadmos · · Score: 1

      come to canada instead - all of the beauty - none of the ph34r

      Thank you I think I will :-) Honestly, most people I know don't see the USA as a place to go anymore, Canada on the the other hand is doing everything right...

    24. Re:yet another reason by SilverJets · · Score: 1

      If you think that our treatment of Zundel is reason enough not to visit, then guess what? We don't want you to visit. Take your money, and your point of view elsewhere. Its our country, not yours!

    25. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom to discuss historical events in a civilized manner is not racism.

      But you wouldn't understand that ..

    26. Re:yet another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's why everything is more expensive in Canada with their salaries being substantially lower ..

      Fucking heaven .. I am telling you fucking heaven on earth.

      In any case, Canada is just a fucking blimp on the map and without US economy would simply fold up and die - you know it and it hurts but you can't change it.

    27. Re:yet another reason by micromuncher · · Score: 1

      Naw, I live in Alberta and am glued to CTV news net. Yeehaw.

      --
      /\/\icro/\/\uncher
  17. Is this by computerme · · Score: 1

    Is this what he means when he says:

    Freedom is on the march(TM)

  18. Not really a 'rights' issue by Staplerh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The CBC is reporting that starting in 2007, most Canadians will require a passport to cross into the United States and by 2008 Americans who crossed freely into Canada will be unable to return to the United States without a passport. The tougher new rules still allow Canadians to cross without being fingerprinted, but every person from any other country will be required to submit to fingerprinting.

    Now, it's my understanding that a sovereign country can control their borders in any way they see fit. Perhaps there's some sort of rights argument to be made about the americans who need a passport to re-enter their country, although it doesn't seem like a major issue, but Canadians.. heck, I'm a Canadian, and it doesn't really effect our rights. America can do whatever they want with their borders to non-citizens. If they don't want to let us come in, heck, that really is their perogative.

    --
    "There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
    - Bob Dylan
    1. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well if you see yourself as a part of a larger community, it can be construed as a rights issue. Really though it's no big deal - get a passport. The only people who will be hurt are the idiots that don't plan ahead, and then boohoo to the media about how unfair the system is.

      It is telling, however, that Canada and the US, two of the most alike and intertwined countries on the planet, are moving apart, while at the same time the enormously diverse European Union acts in many ways like a single country.

    2. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by greed · · Score: 1
      Well if you see yourself as a part of a larger community, it can be construed as a rights issue.

      I cannot speak to the American constitution, but the Canadian constitution provides for the right of both exit and entry. So they cannot put barriers to entry in the way of Canadian citizens; in particular, requiring a difficult to obtain non-free document would not be constitutional.

      (Those of us who do our own taxes, don't have a regular GP, and are athiests, and work in software generally do not know people allowed to sign your passport application.)

    3. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know any university professors or professional engineers? They are also acceptable, provided they have known you long enough.

    4. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      It's not the Canadian government requiring anything. So your point would be?

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    5. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing that really fucking pisses me off is the fingerprinting of TRANSIT PASSENGERS PASSING THROUGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS.

      Really folks, get a grip. You're just an anonymous airport with a transit lounge we sit in for an hour. The only difference between transit in Hong Kong or Singapore and LAX is that LAX is full of cunts who want to fingerprint you for no good reason.

    6. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by Ironsides · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but the Canadian constitution provides for the right of both exit and entry. So they cannot put barriers to entry in the way of Canadian citizens; in particular, requiring a difficult to obtain non-free document would not be constitutional.

      right of both exit and entry: So they allow anyone, regardless of nationality, into the country and without checking ID?
      difficult to obtain: I (in the USA) can get the form at any post office or AAA office or any of a number of places, along with the photos the require. Sounds like Canada is putting up a barrier to you getting one.
      non-free document: Your dirvers license probably wasn't free either. In VA,USA I had to pay $15 for it (lasts 5 years). If I got a regular state ID that would also cost money. Besides, if you can't afford the $87 (Canadian$, not US$), you probably can't afford to go many places.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    7. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by coma_bug · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Now, it's my understanding that a sovereign country can control their borders in any way they see fit.

      In general, this is not true: sovereign nations cannot just do as they see fit. In this particular case, taking my fingerprints without probable cause and without a specific warrant would seem to violate my rights, as expressed in the Fourth Amendment:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    8. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by Malc · · Score: 1

      Anybody who thinks a passport is hard to obtain is probably just lazy. Sorry to break it to you. I've been getting passports since I was a teenager (I'm now in my fourth decade) and I think they're fairly simple obtain.

    9. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I don't know a single eligible guarantor. This doesn't make getting a passport particularly hard, but it does entire additional expense in having a statutory declaration sworn before a notary. I can see a lot of people not bothering, under the circumstances.

    10. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Canadian, and it doesn't really effect our rights. Nor does it affect your rights.

    11. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think that sucks... transit passengers will soon be required to have visas too! Expect a lot of airline traffic to start avoiding US hubs as a result.

    12. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by hikerhat · · Score: 1

      Well, Canada will be stuck with a bunch of fat confused americans consuming vast amounts of Canadian resources who can't get back into their own country. This certainly infringes on your right as a non-American to not have to deal with fat confused Americans.

    13. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You also need a US Visa to transit through the USA. A Croatian friend of mine on her way from the UK to visit a friend in Jamaica was SENT BACK TO THE UK because she didn't have a visa for the USA. All she needed to do was sit in (be locked in) the transit lounge for an hour. What a fucked up country.

    14. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by rkww · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you should move to the UK, there's a huge list of people who could sign your application, provided they hold a passport themselves:
      ACCEPTABLE COUNTERSIGNATURES

      Accountant
      Articled Clerk of a Limited Company
      Assurance Agent of Recognised Company
      Bank/Building Society Official
      Barrister
      Broker
      Chairman/Director of Limited Company
      Chemist
      Chiropodist
      Christian Science Practitioner
      Commissioner of Oaths
      Councillor: Local or County
      Civil Servant (permanent)
      Dentist
      Engineer (with professional Qualifications)
      Fire Service Official
      Funeral Director
      Insurance agent (full time) of a recognised Company
      Journalist
      Justice of the Peace
      Legal Secretary (members and fellows of the Institute of legal secretaries)
      Local Government Officer
      Manager/Personnel Officer (of Limited Company)
      Member of Parliament
      Merchant Navy Officer
      Minister of a recognised religion
      Nurse (SRN and SEN)
      Officer of the armed services (Active or Retired)
      Optician
      Person with Honours (eg OBE MBE etc)
      Photographer (Professional)
      Police Officer
      Post Office Official
      President/Secretary of a recognised organisation
      Salvation Army Officer
      Social Worker
      Solicitor
      Surveyor
      Teacher, Lecturer
      Trade Union Officer
      Travel Agency (Qualified)
      Valuers and auctioneers (fellow and associate members of the incorporated society)
      Warrant officers and Chief Petty Officers
      Or persons of similar standing to the above, working or retired, are acceptable as countersignatories.
    15. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Most postal offices in the US provide free notary services for passport applications. Sucks to be Canadian, eh?

      Also, if you work for a company of reasonable size, ask around - I'll bet you one of your co-workers is a notary public, which makes them acceptable as a guarantor. I know my office has several, simply because it was cheaper to get a few people certified as notaries than it was to pass all our legal documentation through a notary service.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    16. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comrade Cheney is only thinking of the children; he is only tracking everyone to protect your children from terrorists, people of foreign race or tongue or religion, who are evil and out to destroy you!

    17. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      TRANSIT PASSENGERS PASSING THROUGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS.

      I had it worse. I was flying from Sao Paulo, Brazil, to Sydney, Australia, with a change of plane in LAX. I had to allow 6 hours for the transit, as LAX doesn't believe in transit lounges between airlines (or something).

      So I had to go through immigration to enter the States, walk the 5 minutes to the other terminal, go back through immigration and get on the other plane. For non-US citizens, the LAX immigration queues really suck (usually 2 immigration counters per planeload of people).

      "..and how long do you intend to remain in the United States?"

      "Umm.. about 4 hours"

      LAX has to be my least favourite airport in the world. Unfortunately, almost every flight from Australia to North or Central America passes through there.

    18. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by follower-fillet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Expect a lot of airline traffic to start avoiding US hubs as a result.

      It's already happening.

      --Phil.

    19. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the enormously diverse European Union acts in many ways like a single country.

      +5 Funny. You should read EURSOC some time.
    20. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      +5 Funny. You should read EURSOC [eursoc.com] some time.

      Wow, so you mean everything isn't popsicles and puppy dogs? How eye opening for me.

    21. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That shouldn't be true as transit areas are designated non-american soil.

      Go read up on it, people detained without rights in transit areas. The US rountinely uses this excuse to abuse peoples rights.

    22. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by Inigo+Montoya · · Score: 1

      International traffic at Victoria International Airport and Vancouver International Airport, both on the Pacific coast of Canada and boardering with the USA, has increased significantly since the security was tightened in the USA. Many tourists will make Canada a destination now, and many more will use a Canadian hub in transit to another, non-us destination. A quick stop in Canada, then a hop OVER the USA to your final destination.

    23. Re:Not really a 'rights' issue by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity ... what would they do if you refuse? Deport you into another country?

  19. So if I "lose" my passport while in Canada... by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

    Can I stay there?

    1. Re:So if I "lose" my passport while in Canada... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure...in jail, that is.

    2. Re:So if I "lose" my passport while in Canada... by xander2032 · · Score: 1

      If you're an American you can stay in Canada legally for upto six months without a visa. After that you're an illegal alien! Also... You won't be able to work and go to school during your six months in Canada.

    3. Re:So if I "lose" my passport while in Canada... by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      How's this for irony: I know a woman from Canada who's living as an illegal alien in Mexico. I know she's doing it for love, but I really don't get it.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
  20. The big secret by chipmeister · · Score: 3, Funny

    I bet they will still let people in without a passport. Only Americans would be naive enough to leave their country without one. Thus proof of citizenship!

    1. Re:The big secret by mencik · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just bring your American Express card. Never leave home without it!

    2. Re:The big secret by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1, Funny

      Only Americans would be naive enough to leave their country without one.

      That's so cool how you make fun of Americans. They are so provincial, aren't they (it's best to say this sentence like Thurston Howell, III). Obviously, you are enlightened and intelligent.

    3. Re:The big secret by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Only Americans would be naive enough to leave their country without one.

      I've seen some Americans travel all over Europe and could swear they never left their country once.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    4. Re:The big secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's because Oregon is larger than the UK, Texas is larger than France, and Alaska is larger than all of Western Europe.

      I'm sure more Americans would have passports if they had to cross five national boundaries just to go down to the corner for a pack of smokes.

      Seriously, the US-bashing gets old after a while.

    5. Re:The big secret by Brandybuck · · Score: 3, Informative

      You laugh now, but if Canada/Mexico doesn't check for passports leaving the US, you can rest assured that a lot of people who don't know about this will leave theirs behind.

      This isn't because Americans are stupid, its because the US and Canada do not have a culture of "papers please!" We think of passports as something you need to enter another country, not something you need to get back home.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    6. Re:The big secret by sasha328 · · Score: 1

      For your information, Australia and New Zealand* are not "papers please"' countries either; but you can't "come back" to Australia from overseas (including New Zealand) without a valid Australian passport. I'm not sure if that's the case in New Zealand, but I suspect it is so as well.
      I fail to see the problem with requiring people coming from "abroad" required to have a passport. I know people who studied in the US in the 80s who have obtianed a drivers licence from some state where they used to live. The licence does not have an expiry date. So, when they travel to the US, they use the passport for initial entry, and then just use the "American" drivers licence for everything else. They have not lived in the US since 1986.

      * Note: The relationship between Australia and New Zealand is quite interesting; they are different countires, yet they tend to do things together quite often. People can travel freely between the two, work without special permits, and I'm not sure if it is still the case, also have access to the free education and healthcare of both countries. Effectively, you can do anything except vote if you live in the other country.

    7. Re:The big secret by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Where did they live that their driver's license doesn't have an expiration date? I've never once seen a DL that didn't expire, including working door at bars in college towns, where you see quite a few different IDs (both real *and* imaginary!).

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    8. Re:The big secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You laugh now, but if Canada/Mexico doesn't check for passports leaving the US, you can rest assured that a lot of people who don't know about this will leave theirs behind.

      My God, I see the plan now! Bush intends to use this technique to dump a whole bunch of stupid Americans on Canada! Fiendish...

    9. Re:The big secret by Tim+Browse · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Being from the UK, where you just get a passport as a matter of course when travelling to other countries, so this whole thing seems weird, I'm having trouble following some of the arguments.

      In particular:

      This isn't because Americans are stupid, its because the US and Canada do not have a culture of "papers please!" We think of passports as something you need to enter another country, not something you need to get back home.

      How does that work? If you think of a passport as something you need to enter another country, then if you need to get into the US, then you are by definition coming from another country, so you would have taken your passport when entering that other country in the first place...so you'll still have your passport when you return to try to get into the US, right? Or are people leaving the US with their passports, and leaving their passports abroad when they come back?

      As that's not likely :-), I assume it's really because American people don't generally think of Canada as 'another country' like they do with other countries? I mean, it's similar, has a land border, they (mostly) speak the same language, etc.

      Or am I missing some other cultural effect?

    10. Re:The big secret by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      This isn't because Americans are stupid, its because the US and Canada do not have a culture of "papers please!" We think of passports as something you need to enter another country, not something you need to get back home.

      But it's ironic that i this case getting back home in, in fact, another country, which would be exactly when one might expect to use a passport. :-P
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:The big secret by wardk · · Score: 1

      Or am I missing some other cultural effect?


      I think possibly so. Historically, getting back and forth between the US and Canada has been not much dismilar than going from Oregon into California and pulling over for a fruit check. (while smiling) "Hello, eh*?, where ya from?, where ya goin?. have a good trip!" going into B.C. And "where ya from?, where ya been?, buy anything?, proceed" coming home. (at least in my experience at blaine,sumas)

      and I think to some respect there is a bit of truth to the idea that American citizens don't think of Canada as another country.

      I admit I am a bit put out by the notion I need a passport to travel to and from Canada. It sucks. Something cool is being lost. but I guess we'll just get used to it.

      I say focus on blocking the bad guys from ports coming onto the continent and work to remove the barriers on the continent. that would be a nicer world to live in. Not holding my breath.

      * no disrespect intended, eh

    12. Re:The big secret by Wolfkin · · Score: 1

      What you're missing is the meaning of "another country" in this case. You see, there are two kinds of country on Earth: the US, and "others". ;)

      That is, citizens of the US assume that being in and coming into the US is their right, with or without a passport, and so it doesn't occur to them that they might not be able to come back without one. When one goes to another country, one either does or doesn't have to show a passport to get into the other country, and if one doesn't (and that's the case for a USian in most of North America and the Caribbean), then the easy assumption is that one won't need it at all on this trip.

      The easiest, fastest solution to this, from the viewpoint of a USian, is for all of those other countries around the US that don't require USian passports for USians to start requiring them, but I suppose they're worried that it could reduce tourism.

      --
      Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
    13. Re:The big secret by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      but I suppose they're worried that it could reduce tourism.

      Heh. At first glance, I read that as:

      but I suppose they're worried that it could reduce terrorism.

      :-)

    14. Re:The big secret by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Back in the '80s some states didn't even have photos on their drivers' licenses. That's because there was this crazy idea that the document is supposed to license a driver, not serve as identification...

      God-damned authoritarians removing every last vestige of liberty in this once-free land. Both parties are to blame; very few people actually care for freedom. Bastards.

    15. Re:The big secret by rthille · · Score: 1

      Hell, I got back in without ID! I was going to mexico for a friend's bachelor party (Tijuana), and we parked on the US side and walked into Mexico. Once there I realized I'd left my wallet on the wrong side of the fence. I was a little worried, especially since on the way back one of the other celebrants decided it would be fun to call out to the INS agent, "ask him for ID!". Asshole :-) Anyway, I guess I looked/sounded american enough, because they let me back in. All Pre-9/11 of course.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    16. Re:The big secret by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Photo id is a totally different issue than a non-expiring license for a skill you can *lose*. Who the hell thinks it's a good idea that the same license you get at 16 implies you still possess the capability to operate a motor vehicle at 60?

      (Yes, I support mandatory road tests for relicensure, and at a very minimum want to see states requiring eyesight tests every other renewal - every 6 to 10 years, in other words.)

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    17. Re:The big secret by Wolfkin · · Score: 1

      You owe me a powerbook screen. ;)

      --
      Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
    18. Re:The big secret by OblivionExpress · · Score: 1

      All being done using the "terrorism threat" as an excuse... funny how there was no terror threats real or imagined in the U.S. until the government began blowing up other countries to get at their old reserves... hmmm...

      --
      Where does information go after it has been erased?
    19. Re:The big secret by mobiGeek · · Score: 1
      Who are the "stupid Americans"? The ones who expand their horizons by leaving their own borders for a bit or those who'd never consider it?

      BTW: how many times was it that GWB was outside of the US prior to running for the whitehouse?

      --

      ...Beware the IDEs of Microsoft...

    20. Re:The big secret by lahvak · · Score: 2, Informative

      How does that work? If you think of a passport as something you need to enter another country, then if you need to get into the US, then you are by definition coming from another country, so you would have taken your passport when entering that other country in the first place...so you'll still have your passport when you return to try to get into the US, right? Or are people leaving the US with their passports, and leaving their passports abroad when they come back?

      I think the point is that when you go to another country, its this other country that requires you to show your passport. Well, it so happens that Canada decided they don't really need to see a passport when you travel from the USA. So you can actually enter Canada from USA without a passport. If you know that, you will probably leave your passport at home. Canadians don't need to see it, you don't want to go to any other country, why bring it? The problem is, now you need it not to enter Canada, but to return back home.

      --
      AccountKiller
    21. Re:The big secret by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      To get back into the US, all I need to do is to prove my US citizenship. That doesn't require a passport. At least it doesn't anywhere else.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    22. Re:The big secret by ynohoo · · Score: 1

      The UK has a similar situation with the Republic of Ireland - no passport is required to cross the border. You normally need one to fly between the two, and you may be asked for one if you go by ferry.

  21. Boundary Waters by TykeClone · · Score: 1

    In high school, I went to the Boundary Waters canoe area (lots of fun - I'd recommend it). We stayed on the US side most of the time, but just there are no controls whatsoever there. We just popped over to Canada for lunch one day.

    --
    A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    1. Re:Boundary Waters by Shalda · · Score: 2, Interesting

      US/Canada is the worlds largest ungarded border. There is absolutely no way to secure it. Requiring passports to travel across it can only inconveniance the honest and law abiding. Or, as the movie "Canadian Bacon" so chillingly put it - Canadians... they walk among us.

    2. Re:Boundary Waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as something keeps Celine Dione out I am happy.

  22. Whew! by SoupGuru · · Score: 3, Funny

    With that gaping security hole closed up I can finally sleep at night knowing I'm safe from all the bad people in the world.

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    1. Re:Whew! by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 1

      If you think about this from a practical perspective this is actually necessary. You can't expect the border patrol to be intimately familiar with every state's driver's license. The only other viable option would be a uniform national identification card.

      I think it would be good to allow people to enter with the license of the state they are entering though, since a border guard in say New York should know what a New York driver's license looks like, and then a lot of the people on day-trips to Canada wouldn't get hassled.

  23. Yeah, but which passport? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I've got two - a US one and a Canadian one.

    Born in the USA.

    It's just a plot by the man to stick us with RFIDs we don't want.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Yeah, but which passport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When entering the US, you *always* must use your US passport, if you are a US citizen. Dumbass. They should have citizenship tests also include intelligence tests so that idiots like you don't get a citizenship that you don't deserve.

    2. Re:Yeah, but which passport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here.
      It's against the law as a U.S. citizen to enter the states on any passport other than your U.S. one.

    3. Re:Yeah, but which passport? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      No, technically, I can use my Canadian passport if transitting to another country via the US and orginating or ending in Canada.

      I already took a citizenship test - when I was just a kid, in Canada - which was the only way you got dual citizenship back then, being born in the US to US parents.

      But, recently I found out I can apply for a Canadian passport for my son too, since he's a dual citizen as well, even if his mom is only American - then he'll have two passports as well.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Yeah, but which passport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. But why should I care? Try it next time and eventually once you get caught, you'll get a whole crapload of trouble because you think you're right.

      "But technically I can use my Canadian passport if I am just passing through the US, but I originate and end my travel in Canada! " while you get strip-searched and body-cavity-searched by some airport Feds. And you would deserve it too.

    5. Re:Yeah, but which passport? by BroadwayBlue · · Score: 1
      From the Dual Citizenship FAQ :

      "Note that a US citizen is generally required by US law and State Department regulations to be in possession of a US passport when leaving or entering the US. This requirement does not apply when entering the US from Canada, Mexico, or Caribbean countries (other than Cuba); however, even in those cases, proof of one's identity and one's US citizenship is still required, and a passport is probably the best such proof."

      I guess the FAQ will have to be updated.

  24. You know by Tebriel · · Score: 1

    The article says you can get a special border crossing card so you don't need your passport (at least for Canadiens). So what's the big deal?

    --
    The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
    1. Re:You know by outlineblue · · Score: 1

      Problem is, that "special" border pass contains all you biometric information in digital form. I for one, don't want my fingerprints taken just to cross into the USA, they already my picture everytime...

    2. Re:You know by beckett · · Score: 1

      that card requires a background check, fingerprint and/or retinal scan, that goes in a huge database indefinitely.

      I just wanted to buy gas and groceries. i won't submit to an informational colonoscopy to do that.

    3. Re:You know by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      [this message removed so as to not prejudice my next holidaying in the usa. i have been fingerprinted and photographed as a uk citizen holidaying in the usa in the last few months.]

    4. Re:You know by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      Problem is, that "special" border pass contains all you biometric information in digital form. I for one, don't want my fingerprints taken just to cross into the USA, they already my picture everytime...

      Then use your passport asshat. This isn't get what the fuck you want day in yousville.

    5. Re:You know by outlineblue · · Score: 1

      The point was to show that using the "special" pass wasn`t easier or a better alternative than using a passport.

      But hey, if you don`t mind having your DNA on file, that's your call.

    6. Re:You know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a special border crossing card" - yup, that's also called a "passport" in most english dialects.

  25. Harder for me to come back? by DogDude · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    With all of the crazy bullshit going on in this country right now, why do they think that Americans will WANT to come back? I'm worried about travelling right now, because if I find a place that isn't run by religious fundamentalists, I may just decide to stay!

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Harder for me to come back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us are entranced by the classic American idea, I have my home, don't tread on me. Freedom and all that jazz. I'm not leaving home forever to forget my family and friends. I'm staying to try and fix it.

      Funny how that sounds like the choice that people in the USSR had.

    2. Re:Harder for me to come back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm worried about travelling right now, because if I find a place that isn't run by religious fundamentalists, I may just decide to stay!

      You will be missed.

    3. Re:Harder for me to come back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll be welcomed to any Knee-jerkers Anonymous meeting anytime, just bring your card and sappy comments with you.

  26. Strange.. by broothal · · Score: 0, Troll

    All Soviet Russia jokes aside, it's alarming how much the US resembles the old USSR. Impossible to get in and out of without a cavity search. Anything you say on the phone will be potentially picked up by the government, and privacy is virtually non-existant.

    1. Re:Strange.. by donutello · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since when did producing a passport become the equivalent of a cavity search?

      Idiotic statements like yours lead me to believe you are uneducated and don't understand the horrors that the Soviets put their citizens through.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    2. Re:Strange.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, all of you are aside the jokes!

    3. Re:Strange.. by Cap'n+Steve · · Score: 0

      "Impossible to get in and out of without a cavity search."

      Where are you keeping your passport?!

    4. Re:Strange.. by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      While currently a overstatment things are heading that way. I recently went to Singapore. Took me well under 5 minutes to clear customs and immigration at Changi. And I had a *ton* of computer gear, books, and clothing that clearly wasn't for me.

      Coming back it took the idiots at Portland nearly 30 minutes to clear me *back* into the country with a suitcase full of dirty laundry. Given what I saw on the plane and the fingerprint machines on the way in if I would not travel to this country for anything if I wasn't a citizen.

      While we are certainly not even close to Soviet Russia we are much less free than many places in the world.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    5. Re:Strange.. by mizhi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I call bullshit.

      Discounting the longer security lines, it's no harder for US citizens to travel internationally than it was before 9/11.

      And yes, I speak from experience. Hell, I renewed my passport through the mail in under 3 weeks.

      --
      Humorless sig goes here.
    6. Re:Strange.. by Half-Baked · · Score: 0

      If the Reich-publicans get their way, soon the current US will make the former Soviet Union look like the US in the 50's

    7. Re:Strange.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try doing that in Singapore without a US passport or try doing it while not being White.

      I traveled to Hong Kong a few years ago and exited through immigration with an acquaintance I had made on the plane. He made it through in seconds and it took me several minutes while my passport was given the third degree and I was asked a lot of questions.

      How does time at the border equate to a lack of freedom? Being asked to produce a passport to PROVE you have the rights you claim to have (the right to enter the country) is not that ridiculous a requirement.

    8. Re:Strange.. by donutello · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Putin will be forced to remove curbs on his citizens, free up the press and media and hasten the democratization process and Russia, i.e. the former Soviet Union will indeed look like the US in the 50's with freedom of speech and press.

      That's not what you meant, though, is it?

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    9. Re:Strange.. by soulsteal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since when did producing a passport become the equivalent of a cavity search?

      Depends on where you keep your passport. Zing!

    10. Re:Strange.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzzt - you lose! Nazi references are an automatic disqualifier. I'm sure that you thought that you were being clever, though.

    11. Re:Strange.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's startling about the US is how fast it's starting to resemble what they used to stand
      against. the grandparent was a little exaggerated, but it's not 'idiotic' or 'uneducated'.

      Some people are more sensitive to the change and are quicker to scare, some other will live
      confident that nothing is wrong for years and years.... and suddenly stumble with the fact that
      a cavity search IS required to leave or enter the country...

    12. Re:Strange.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you haven't seen where I keep my passport.

    13. Re:Strange.. by Jonny_eh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please do not use an "irrational form of persuasion" on slashdot. We're too smart for that :)

      Your irrational form of persuasion was in the form of "guilt by association" which involves the application of a faulty analogy.

      You are implying that merely because the United States is becoming slightly stricter with identifying who enters and leaves its' county, that they are somehow turning into the next Soviet Empire.

      Another example: "Canada is becoming the next Soviet Union because of the introduction of a strictly government run medicare system"

      The analogies one can make are endless.

      My personal opinion on this issue is that I don't care if they want my passport, I always have my passport when I leave my country, it's the sane thing to do. If the Americans want my fingerprints though, I'd think twice before going on a vacation there, but I still wouldn't call them the U.S.S.R.!

    14. Re:Strange.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not of European descent, are you. If you're not Asian, the delay through Singapore is substantially longer than 5 minutes.

    15. Re:Strange.. by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      I'm as white as they come.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    16. Re:Strange.. by drawfour · · Score: 1

      Dec of 2003, I went to Costa Rica with a friend. We were going to go to Puero Rico (US Territory, no passport required, since I didn't have one) but we couldn't find a reasonably priced hotel. So we went to Costa Rica, who up until a few months before, did not require a passport for Americans. But that had just changed. So we bought the tickets. I was leaving on Monday night at about 2am (OK, so it's Tuesday morning), and needed my passport by then. On Friday, I went to Vegas for the weekend. That Friday and the entire weekend, the 800 number for expediting passports was out of service. Monday morning at 7am, I was able to get through. Made an appointment for 9am that day, had my passport expedited and in hand by 2pm, and was at the airport by midnight. Not an issue at all.

      I had 0 issues while travelling other than the standard waits for security checks. No issues with baggage checks or anything, or issues with dealing with the gifts I'd brought back with me.

      Piece of cake.

    17. Re:Strange.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it's alarming how much the US resembles the old USSR

      No, what is alarming is that you think this. With all the issues facing the US right now, your statement is still astonishingly ignorant across the board. Ignorant of how it really is in the US. Ignorant of how it was in the USSR. Just total andd complete pig ignorance beyond what is normally considered possible for a sane human being.

    18. Re:Strange.. by TLSPRWR · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine went on Tsunami relief mission trip a month ago, and only had about two weeks to plan it. He didn't have a passport, and all it took was a short trip to Mobile, Alabama (1 hour drive) and he had his passport in a week. Could've had it sooner, but didn't want to pay for rush delivery. It all boils down to money.

    19. Re:Strange.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right - you can't call them the U.S.S.R. - in U.S.S.R. you did have to have the passport everywhere you went but you were never fingerprinted when crossing a border. So it looks that US already 'outperformed' U.S.S.R.

  27. Online Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell does this subject have to do with "rights online"? Looks like just another execuse for liberals to complain that the U.S. needs and open-border policy (not that we don't already, considering the millions of ILLEGAL immigrants that are here already)

  28. Going to Canada by dema · · Score: 1

    Not long ago some friends and I went to a show in Detroit and on the way home we randomly decided to take the bridge over to Canada. Upon entering Canada the woman asked us what our intentions were and the person driving said "I don't know, we just want to check out Canada." or something like that. So she waved us on without any other questions or ID checks and we went to Essex and got a pizza.

    On the way back, however, the guy asked to see all of our licenses, questioned each of us about a variety of things, and did a search of the vehicle's trunk. All in all it took about twenty minutes. The same thing appeared to happen to the two vehicles before us.

    Probably not worth drawing any serious conclusions, but I found the distinction to be rather amusing (:

    1. Re:Going to Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So she waved us on without any other questions or ID checks and we went to...
      She was probably thinking:
      Tee-hee! the suckers are gonna get sooooooo eaten by a polar bear!!
    2. Re:Going to Canada by smchris · · Score: 1

      That's about it. Going into Canada has been like, "Welcome to Canada! Enjoy!" But those are steely SOBs coming back.

      Wife and I honeymooned tenting out at the Winnipeg Folk Festival. She had her driver's license. I had mine from another city. We honestly and gullibly said we were now living in a third city. Spent an hour sunning on a ledge watching his buddy wave in musicians I recognized while he rooted through the vehicle.

      It does make a person wonder what a post-9/11 Canadian honeymoon would end like without passports.

    3. Re:Going to Canada by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      " (: "

      Yeah, I'd be sad too if my eyes were on my fucking chin!

  29. Think of the children by The+Hobo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I submitted the story, and forgot to include this as food for thought:

    Think of a typical family of four. My own just did this. Say this family wants to go to Disneyland from Canada. As it stands, my parents were able to go with the young'ns without a problem, and none of them have passports. Tourists from Canada are a part of the US economy. Had the passports been required, it would have cost: 87 + 87 + 37 + 37, plust GST, which is a total of 265.36$, and that doesn't even include the trouble of finding a guarantor and taking passport photos which cost more than normal photos. This is on top of any other travel costs, likely for a single trip. This will most definitely deter Canadians from visiting and spending money in the US. Not to mention that passports take at least 3 weeks to get, ruling out any sudden decisions to say pick a US ski package to a Canadian one. I personally enjoy taking trips to the US, but this makes it much harder, and I'm certain this scenario will be repeated.

    --
    There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
    1. Re:Think of the children by kebes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are correct, but your figures were assuming that the family only takes one out-of-country trip every 5 years. The real tourist money probably comes from people that travel more often. Those people (families) will have up-to-date passports anyway (even for the kids), and it won't be a matter of getting a new passport, but just bringing your current passport. Most people I know have a valid passport at all times anyway, for one reason or another.

      As you say, this will decrease the number of "impulse tourists" who don't otherwise travel abroad, but I doubt this will put a serious dent in the US tourism budget. Those people will probably just deal with the longer line at the border to get the proper tourist card or whatever.

    2. Re:Think of the children by Jonavin · · Score: 1

      Good points but most Canadians I know have active passports. This is less common in the USA. So if anything, it will deter USian tourists from visitting Canada, if our raising dollar hasn't already done that.

      So as far as tourism goes. This is a net gain for the USA.

    3. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It cuts both ways, though. Canada depends upon plenty of U.S. tourism as well, which will be discouraged for much the same reasons. I do think Canada will be on the losing side of the equation, though.

      It's bad enough that these purported anti-terrorism measures cost a huge wad of money that could be spent elsewhere on measures that might work better, but they will also cut into the general economic exchange between the two countries. That's a hefty bill on both sides of the border.

    4. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So point out to your MP that you're paying exhorbitant taxes already - why should a passport be so doggone expensive? Don't blame the US for requiring expensive passports; blame the Canadian government for making them so expensive.

    5. Re:Think of the children by radish · · Score: 1

      I think it's hilarious that people over here factor the cost of a passport into a trip. I'm european, and everyone has a passport, pretty much from birth. It's just something you have...

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    6. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or how about a single father that HAS to get a written and notarized letter from the EX to get a passport for his daughter so he can take her on a weekend trip to toronto.

      now the EX is a raving bitch, and she will not do this simply to be an ass. I know it hurts her relationship with the kid, but it sucks that a parent with legal custody now has his nuts yet again in the hands of a bitch he though he was rid of years ago...

    7. Re:Think of the children by MacGod · · Score: 1

      Had the passports been required, it would have cost: 87 + 87 + 37 + 37, plust GST, which is a total of 265.36$

      That's about the cost of what, a cheesburger meal at a Disneyland food court?

      --
      "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
    8. Re:Think of the children by mbaciarello · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're British, right?

      It would seem so as you're conception of "Europe" is curiously wrong.

      Most European countries and members of the EU now enjoy the beauties of the Schengen treaty, allowing free border-crossing without ID (air travel still requires ID, but it's not a matter of borders as much as a security issue, of course.)

      The UK, needless to say, doesn't mingle.

      Moreover, many European countries have national ID cards in addition to passports. You don't need a passport to go to your bank, nor to go to many non-EU/non-Schengen countries such as the Czech Republic, Croatia or Egypt.

      Signed,

      a European who only needs his passport to go to the US.

    9. Re:Think of the children by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      It goes the other way as well. Normally, when I travel to Canada, I'm the only one there using a passport (because I travel to other countries as well). This is a step toward making the passport + national ID the only real way to identify you.

    10. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm also Canadian. I know very few fellow Canadians with passports, although I know lots who go to the U.S. fairly regularly. I can't see how this can be good for their tourism industry.

    11. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like the Canadians are just starting to be treated like the Mexicans have been for years -- not that that makes it right.

    12. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I guess you don't fly very often, right?

    13. Re:Think of the children by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      I'm a Canadian which is pretty close to the US border, I've been from NY/MI all the way down to TN and clear across west to WA. I don't have, nor have I ever had, a passport. Nobody that I know who has travelled to the states has a passport. Passport ownership isn't common up here either, it's quite the exception and not the rule.

    14. Re:Think of the children by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I'm european, and everyone has a passport, pretty much from birth. It's just something you have...

      That's because all of your countries are the size of one of our football stadiums.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    15. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK, needless to say, doesn't mingle.

      We mingle just as much as the continental countries. You don't need a passport to travel across any of our land borders.

    16. Re:Think of the children by miles_thatsme · · Score: 1

      In other news, Canada increasing the term for which a passport is valid to 120 years. Your children can use their passports with baby photos until they are white-haired (or if they're albino, for a really long time).

    17. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Canadian tourists have any significant role in the US economy. They may have a local effect on areas near the border, but nothing on the nationwide scale. I don't even think foreign tourists as a whole have any significant role in the US economy. USA will keep going just fine even if all foreigners stopped visiting them as tourists. Maybe even business trips can stop without much effect. On the other hand, American tourists play a significant role on the Canadian economy. I'm saying this as a Canadian who's lived in various locations in both countries.

    18. Re:Think of the children by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1
      I personally enjoy taking trips to the US, but this makes it much harder, and I'm certain this scenario will be repeated.

      Hey, it goes both ways. I used to love going over to Niagara Falls in Ontario for a weekend and visiting (let's be honest, the Canadian side of the falls is a nicer tourist area), but it looks like I'll never be able to visit there again since I don't really feel like going through the hassle of getting a passport for a weekend visit (I've never travelled to any countries other than Canada). I hear Detroit has a casino now so I imagine they'll be taking a lot of the business away from Windsor too. No more weekend trips to gamble across the border. :-(

    19. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 3 brothers and 2 sisters. That's six of us. Yeah we're a big family.... Ages ar 18, 16, 15, 15 (twins), 13 and 10. Plus my parents.

      That would be (4 x 87.00) + (4 x 37.00) ... or 496.00... plus 7% GST... About 530.72. Before the trip even got factored in.

      I can see now why we never take vaccations...

    20. Re:Think of the children by PunkPig · · Score: 1

      By the time I was 16 my parents had taken our family to Florida and Myrtle Beach for 2-3 week vacations at least 10 times. We never had passports.

    21. Re:Think of the children by klang · · Score: 1

      Some are even smaller!!

      Luxemburg, Monaco, (the Vatican), Denmark :-)

    22. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need passport to fly in Europe, national ID is enough.

  30. How is this "online"? by Wubby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't mean to be picky (ok, maybe I do), but how is this story about "Rights Online"? Politics maybe. I agree there may be a rights issue. Big Brother Bush wanting to ensure that we all stay adequatly Nationalist and all, but I troll...

    YRO, IIRC, is "Your Rights Online". And don't say, "Your reading it online, right?" 'Cause that would be "Your Rights, Online".

    --
    Sig
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
    1. Re:How is this "online"? by RetepMc · · Score: 1

      Because if you are driving to/from Canada, and there is traffic in front of you, you are "On line", so therefore YRO does stand for "Your Rights On line"

      --
      PtPete
    2. Re:How is this "online"? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      YRO, IIRC, is "Your Rights Online". And don't say, "Your reading it online, right?" 'Cause that would be "Your Rights, Online".

      You're absolutely right about that one...

      It should be called: You're Rites; Onlne

      But seriously, BFD, so it's not convenient to have punctuation marks in a title, oh no...
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  31. War on Terror..... oops... I mean Tourism by herbicidal+maniac · · Score: 5, Funny

    Be very very wary.... the War on Tourism will be a long hard road.... there may even be tourists living on your street. Your next door neighbor may be a tourist, report any suspicious activities. We will not stop until we have eliminated the scourge of touism from our land. They are all around you, checking out our national treasures.

    1. Re:War on Terror..... oops... I mean Tourism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention contaminating our precious bodily fluids!

    2. Re:War on Terror..... oops... I mean Tourism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please help by reporting suspicious activity such as:

      Wearing USA or US Flag baseball caps

      Cameras on chest straps

      Asking for directions with Arabic accents

      Asking for directions with NYC accent

      Saying "Thank you" after retail transactions

      "Support The Troops " ribbons not in appropriate yellow color or featuring Cyrillic or Arabic lettering

      Hawaiian Shirts Dial 911 immediately! Shoot to kill if no phone avalible.

    3. Re:War on Terror..... oops... I mean Tourism by jpetts · · Score: 1

      Well, at least it's not like Greece, where they use the same word for visitor and stranger: xenos, as in "xenophobia: fear and hatred of guests"

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    4. Re:War on Terror..... oops... I mean Tourism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least this will prevent any recurrance of Canadians committing acts of terrorism on the US...
      huh?

  32. The EU by mindstrm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The EU, and the rest of the world, should call the American's bluff on this one.. just not produce the new funky passports to appease the US.

    Further, I hope Canada reciprocates and requires americans to have valid passports.

    1. Re:The EU by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Further, I hope Canada reciprocates and requires americans to have valid passports.

      Fine by me. The only reason this wasn't started 80+ years ago was do to the logistics involved in protecting a 3,000 mile long border. (thats 5000km for those of you on the metric system). Of course, by you sounds like you think no one should ever need a passport to go anywhere.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    2. Re:The EU by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      I like the last line in the article:

      "Some analysts have said that [requiring visas from EU citizens] could mean a loss of more than $10 billion US to the U.S. travel industry."

      So if those EU tourists aren't spending their $10G in the USA, they'll probably spend it in the EU, Asia, Canada, etc.

      Kind of eases the pain, doesn't it?

    3. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further, I hope Canada reciprocates and requires americans to have valid passports.

      As a Canadian, I certainly wouldn't support such a petty, tit-for-tat move. Americans are valuable tourists and good people, and there's nothing to be gained by hassling them.

    4. Re:The EU by xant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't that kind of silly? The American already needs a passport to get back into his country. Take that, you people who are going into Canada on a one-way trip.

      --
      It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    5. Re:The EU by temojen · · Score: 1
      Take that, you people who are going into Canada on a one-way trip.

      Which seems to me to be a good reason for Canada Customs to ask to see US passports... As a matter of professional courtesy to make sure visitors are not going to get stuck.

    6. Re:The EU by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      Actually it pretty much makes it mandatory for Canada to check your passport when you enter - why would you let in someone who forgot to bring their US passport? All that gets you is someone stuck in Canada. Better to just turn them away before they enter. Canada doesn't really have a choice.

      Jedidiah.

    7. Re:The EU by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? The US/Canada have always had a special arrangement regarding passports. Similar economies, cultures, and people. There isn't a flood of illegals one way or the other, so there is no reason logistically to crack down. Sure, there are canadians who go to the US and overstay their allotted time, and the same happens in Canada with americans. No big deal.
      Further, what value does a passport add, in your opinion? Passports are a way to cut down on the number of documents required to let someone enter your country, to prove that they have somewhere to go back to, etc. This is why passports are used internationally.

      At the Canada/US border, it's simple and convenient to accept driver's licenses and birth certificates or other proof of citizenship or residency.

      The bottom line is, a boatload of people travel both ways daily, and this will inconvenience a great many people. Further, it's sad to see Americans, who should be against identifying yourself to the government when not rquired, to be going backwards and asking for more and more identification.

    8. Re:The EU by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Further, I hope Canada reciprocates and requires americans to have valid passports.

      Are you crazy??!! Make it as easy as humanly possible for them to give their tourist dollars to you!

    9. Re:The EU by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Actually it pretty much makes it mandatory for Canada to check your passport when you enter - why would you let in someone who forgot to bring their US passport? All that gets you is someone stuck in Canada.

      Er - no. What that gets you is someone stuck in Canada who then has to spend lots of US dollars on Canadian soil while trying to get back home. Make the most of it, guys ...

    10. Re:The EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "Further, I hope Canada reciprocates and requires americans to have valid passports."

      Absolutely not. It's important that we don't so that your visiting hoards notice that the well run country so much like home doesn't require the draconian method. A few Americans will think about that. We like encouraging Americans to think more.

      All tit-for-tat does is normalize this nonsense.

    11. Re:The EU by klang · · Score: 1

      I see a blooming motel business here!

    12. Re:The EU by CavemanKiwi · · Score: 1

      In NZ they will be rubbing their hands together. 1st the tourist advert that was Lord of Rings came out and now this.

      Here in the UK I told some of my mates that my wife and I will be moving to the US, none of them seem interested in visiting at all. I get comments like pity you wont be in Canada etc. Here it seems with the exception of Florida and the amusment parks that US is not the place to visit.

    13. Re:The EU by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Why?

      It's about reciprocity, always has been. Tourist dollars flow both ways. We won't get as many US tourist dollars? We won't be spending as much there, either.

      Why?

      Because the American public needs to experience a bit of what it allows to be dished out. Jacking up visa requirements, asking for fingerprints and demanding new visas is a pain in the ass to the entire world.. why should Americans then be able to travel easily and freely everywhere else, when they don't reciprocate? Actions need to have consequences. The consequence of allowing most of hte developed worled to travel with no visa or paperwork to the US was a lot of tourism, and easy access for americans everywhere in return. That's all changing now.

  33. "I forgot my passport day" by aapold · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounds like a plan for a series of protests against this policy, if people feel strongly enough about it. Pick a day, and a time, and forget your passport. Have literature on each of your cars... (I think it would work better at land crossings where you can tie up more people)...

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
    1. Re:"I forgot my passport day" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's a great idea. A paranoid administration and paranoid security staff, and you suggest making it completely obvious that an unknown organisation is attempting to enter the country illegally en-masse?

    2. Re:"I forgot my passport day" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forsee many more motels being constructed on the Canadian side of the border.

    3. Re:"I forgot my passport day" by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should re-name it "Spend an Extra Couple of Days in Canada Day" or perhaps "Pay a Fine for Wasting Government Time Day".

  34. Used to be freer than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Used to be freer than that

    Man, I've been hearing that my whole life (sigh).

  35. Deportation by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 3, Funny

    What if Canada deports me? I'm screwed!

    --
    In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    1. Re:Deportation by Kimos · · Score: 1

      Canada's not the paranoid one. We're the nice guys remember? :P

      I'd more worried about someone saying "What if the US deports me? I'm screwed!"

  36. WHAT? by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

    I thought thats what passports where used for?

    Shows how ignorant I am.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
  37. Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses by fastpage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as they have proper documentation and identification. Otherwise its...

    "I'm sorry sir, but your papers are not in order.."

  38. Does anyone else find it hilarious... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    That it's easier to get into the US from Mexico than it is from Canada?! Any terrorist could simply walk across the border into Texas without any impediment by the government. But yet an American citizen will not be allowed cross the Canadian border?! Strange stuff!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious... by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      You assume (incorectly) that you can not cross easily from Canada to the US outside of the border crossings. I've been canoing down upstate NY where you cross from the US to Canada and back to the US without seeing any borders stations, much less people. It's just as easy if not easier to cross from the Canada to the US.

      Also, as the article notes that you link to and mention, they illegals crossing from Mexico into the US are not doing it at border crossing stations, but rather out in the middle of the desert. You are comparing legal and illegal crossings. Also, the border patrol tries to keep illegals from crossing in. Just happens to be a very long border. I'd like to see you do a better job when people are doing pretty much anything to cross the border, including digging tunnels in order to cross.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    2. Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      So if we agree that its easy to get across both borders, then what's the point of the crackdown on the US/Canadian border?! It's certainly NOT to keep people out. There must be some reason for it.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    3. Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious... by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      So if we agree that its easy to get across both borders, then what's the point of the crackdown on the US/Canadian border?! It's certainly NOT to keep people out. There must be some reason for it.

      To make it so that it is not as easy to get across both borders without going through the legitimate checkpoints. The border patrol is working on stoping people from entering from the south outside of the crossings. Don't know what they are going to do with Canda yet. Right now the easiest way for an illegal to get into the US is to fly to Canada and hop a bus or something into the US. Anyone can do the same, including a terrorist. The gov is trying to keep out illegals, terrorists and probably some others (they've denied Visas for other reasons, read BBC for details). Why should we leave these big gaping holes open? They are a threat to national security. At least by doing this it makes it a bit harder to sneak into the country and lets teh gov keep track of foriegners in the US. I expect no less than when I travel to any country in Europe and have to show my passport to the immigration agent.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    4. Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious... by lgw · · Score: 1

      So any solution that's not 100% perfect is pointless? It's low-hanging fruit. It might not make our borders much more secure, but it won't cost much either, so why not?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Exactly how does this new law make it a "bit harder to sneak into the country." In the vast majority of the US/Canadian border, all one has to do is walk from one point to another.

      How does mandating passports stop THAT from happening.

      And I'll remind everyone that every terrorist involved in the 9/11 attacks had VALID passports!

      So, I'll ask again, what's the point?

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    6. Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      "Any solution?" No. This "solution." Yes. If all I have to do is walk from Canada into the US, without any impediment, then demanding Passports from US Citizens is pointless. EXTREMELY POINTLESS. UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY POINTLESS!

      Either the government is completely ignorant about how easy it is to get across the border. Or, something else is going on. I'm leaning towards the latter.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    7. Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious... by lgw · · Score: 1

      What percentage of people entering the US from Canada do it through the border checkpoints? I think you'll find it's most of them. Processes that only catch stupid criminals are still *good* processes - there *is* an IQ test to get into prison. :)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      I'll admit, this law will certainly stop STUPID people from coming into the US. But you'll have to admit it won't stop most terrorists!

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    9. Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a gun control advocate.

    10. Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious... by lgw · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure that's true. Cleary it won't stop smart terrorists, or even slow them down, but it's equally true that most people are pretty clueless, and I doubt most terrorists are an exception.

      Remember the first WTC bombing. We caught the terrorist because he went back for the deposit on the truck he used in the bombing. Catching stupid terrorists is worth doing!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think I figured this out. I'm guessing this is Bush's attempt to save our "poor" pharmaceutical industry by making it harder for US citizens to cross the border and buy cheap drugs.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    12. Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious... by lgw · · Score: 1

      LOL, if you look hard enough, you can find evidence for *any* conspiracy theory you favor. I hope you're right, however, I'd like to see my pharma stocks go up for once. ;)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Well, claiming it stops terrorism makes no sense. So we're forced to believe our government has no sense or has a nefarious purpose. I tend to lean toward the latter.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  39. Fingerprinting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People going into USA has to submit their fingerprints?! Whoa!

  40. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by Jonavin · · Score: 1

    It also helps to be the right skin colour and accent, or at least not the "wrong" ones.

    I get waved through all the time too. My cousin, on the other hand, has gotten his car ripped apart.

  41. you already need a passport, sometimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I drove up to Alaska this summer from the lower 48 so I ended up crossing back into the US a number of times along the way (took some side trips). I would highly recommend taking a passport with you even now. I got a lot of grief from one border patrol guy in particluar, he was a complete asshole about me not having a passport. Said he could lock me up if he wanted to. Total prick. The other 2 times I crossed back into the US I had no problems. But take your passport with you just in case.

  42. Not an issue by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You don't want to go to Disneyland anyway. That place has gone to hell recently. Deaths, closed and broken rides, no Captain Eo. Forget it.

    1. Re:Not an issue by krf · · Score: 1

      No captain Eo?

      Nooooooooooooooo!

  43. Currently able to enter? someone tell these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Currently, Canadians and Americans are able to enter the United States with little more identification than a driver's licence or a birth certificate, though a passport has sometimes made it simpler to satisfy immigration officers at the border."

    Unless ofcourse your one of them. See Here

  44. Yeah, not gonna happen. by DroopyStonx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm SO sure that people living in Detroit who go over to Casino Windsor.. then to return will find themselves barred from the country without a passport.

    Not gonna happen.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  45. what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by the-build-chicken · · Score: 4, Insightful

    U.S. citizens get pretty pissed off when you try and fingerprint them as they enter another country. And more countries will follow suit with this. The principle of reciprocality is enforced by most nations on this planet....so get ready to be fingerprinted U.S. citizens...you treat guests in your country like criminals, and we'll treat you the same way if you ever come to ours...only we'll probably dick you around for 9 hours in the airport as a bit of payback.

    1. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by 15973 · · Score: 1

      Trust me, the LAST thing you want to do is piss off a bunch of Americans. (Remember, the US used to be friends with Iraq and Afghanistan. And Cuba? Well, they just didn't want to play nice.)

    2. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by the-build-chicken · · Score: 1

      yeah...what's up with Cuba...as far as I can see they've done nothing to the U.S. apart from choosing to be a communism country...U.S. deals happily with other communist countries....the cold war is over, why does America still persecute cuba?

    3. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because unlike China, Cuba is easy to bully around.

    4. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Cuba...as far as I can see they've done nothing to
      > the U.S. apart from choosing to be a communism
      > country..

      They followed an order from another country to aim armed nuclear missiles at Florida. That earned them a permanent spot on the blacklist. This is bad blood that doesn't expire. You don't aim a nuke at the East Coast and then say you're sorry.

      Also, do you have any idea what lengths and what level of massacre Cuba went to while "choosing" to be a communist country? There were a LOT of people who objected to that "choice", and a LOT of them died for their trouble.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      > Because unlike China, Cuba is easy to bully around.

      It required nothing less than a serious threat to nuke the island; I wouldn't call that "easy to bully around."

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by the-build-chicken · · Score: 1

      Also, do you have any idea what lengths and what level of massacre Cuba went to while "choosing" to be a communist country?

      Actuall, no I don't...I'm not very knowledgable with the history which is why I was asking...was hoping to get some more knowledgable viewpoints...but I would have to ask, was it more or less than was killed in Russia? China? America seems to be fine doing business with both of those?

      They followed an order from another country to aim armed nuclear missiles at Florida.

      Didn't Russia have nukes pointing at just about every U.S. city for like 20 years?! America seems to not have embargoes on Russia?

    7. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by lgw · · Score: 1

      We had embargos on Russia too, at one time. A grain embargo, we took turns boycotting the Olympics, and just found many ways to express our mutual displeasure. Fortunately, we didn't express our displeasure in terms of nuclear holocost, but we came *very* close during the Cuban missile crises. The only reason any of us are alive today is that no one blinked. The more you know, the scarier it is.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by RatBastard · · Score: 3, Informative
      Several issues:
      1. The large "We want our homeland back but we'd never live there" contingent of ex-Cubans living in Florida have a lot of political pull.
      2. We're still angry because we failed to topple them after they nationalised "our" assets down there.
      3. They are the only communist government in the western hemisphere that we have not been able to topple, in direct conflict with the Monroe Doctrine.
      4. They turned to the Soviet Union for aide after we gave them the cold shoulder.
      5. The Cuban Missile Crisis, though most Americans don't really care abiout that one.
      Mostly we're pissed off because of the whole "commies at our doorstep" thing and we're horrifically sore losers. We choose to forget that Castro came to us for aide and we turned him away.
      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    9. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by the-build-chicken · · Score: 1

      Cheers...all I knew about was the missile crisis bit. Thanks for the quick run down :)

    10. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >America seems to not have embargoes on Russia?

      You don't remember the 1970s. Russia was a taboo subject, even schools failed to teach anything about geography or history there. The "cold war" was a very real thing, and had some significant impacts.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    11. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by the-build-chicken · · Score: 1

      was very young in the 70s, but yes, I remember the cold war (in a vague, childs viewpoint way). Yes it was scary, yes it was terrible, yes it's now over...I guess I don't understand why, if the U.S. can move so rapidly to forgive China and Russia, but maintains crippling embargoes on Cuba...for an outsider it really looks like it's solely because they stand to make more money from China and Russia so they're happy to bastardise their beliefs...which doesn't say a lot for the country as a whole.

    12. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by geoswan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      They followed an order from another country to aim armed nuclear missiles at Florida. That earned them a permanent spot on the blacklist. This is bad blood that doesn't expire. You don't aim a nuke at the East Coast and then say you're sorry.

      Fishbowl has this all backwards. He portrays the Cuban missile batteries as a hostile act, against an innocent USA. Rather it was the predictable counter to a US launched invasion. The CIA, in a case of bad intelligence analysis, hired, trained, planned and equipped a disastrous invasion of Cuba.

    13. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by xander2032 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh so it was perfectly okay for us to have medium range nuclear missles in Western Europe, but when the USSR put them in Cuba it was somehow a "threat" against the US?? But our missles weren't a "threat" to the USSR?? LOL

      Oh you've got to love that great American logic eh!

    14. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Also: the Cuban government stole ('nationalized') the property of a lot of Americans. There are reparations issues involving a considerable amount of money.

    15. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cuba still maintains that they are Communist, and hold a considerable number of political prisoners.

      (not 'political prisoners' of the rhetorical sort that the American left likes to spout about. *real* political prisoners, i.e. in Cuba someone like Jesse Jackson would be in solitary confinement)

    16. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by the-build-chicken · · Score: 1

      same with china

    17. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Castro is an unstable megalomaniac with a big mouth.

    18. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      You're sadly correct. And it is rank hypocrisy for us to have the warm cordial relations we have with China, with their human rights abuse.

      Doesn't mean tennis shoes should start being imported from Cuba.

    19. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by SilverJets · · Score: 1

      Ummm....didn't the former Soviet Union (ie. Russia now) aim MANY nuclear weapons at both coasts and everything in between? Why so chummy with them now?

      At least Cuba has something to offer - cheap vacations and cigars.

    20. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by SilverJets · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The American government stole ("nationalized") the property of a lot of British citizens (United Empire Loyalists) who then fled to Canada. Many of their decendants have legitimate claims on large tracts of land in your country (including much of Manhatten).

    21. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and there was no difference between democratic and free Western Europe/USA and Russia/Eastern Europe Cuba ...

      They both were simply searching for peace and understanding ...

      Talking about logic - fucking moron.

    22. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, but we are strong and you fuckers are weak and that my friend makes all the difference in the world.

      Always has , always will ..

    23. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is amazing how history stops at points where it suits people.

      Prehaps you forgot how Castro basically kicked out the American Mafia out of his country to begin with. Before him Cuba was famous for prostitution and gambling (granted now its probably not that far off).

      Or that Castro actually went to the US first asking for aid for his people and was told to get lost as the president is currently playing Golf (filmed live on US television at the time too). The Russians didn't treat him so badly after that.

    24. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by will_die · · Score: 3, Informative

      The funny thing about your statement is most other countries are far worse then the US, and the US is just protecting its borders.
      Goto places in Europe and alot of asian countries and you find things like the requirement to carry your passport with you all the time, or the hotels take and sometimes keep your passport the entire time you are staying with them. The hotels photo copy the passport and it is sent to the police.

    25. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by klang · · Score: 1

      At least Cuba has something to offer - cheap vacations and cigars.

      The best cigars! And Rum, ah yes. Cubanian Rum, matching cigar, beautiful women.. can a vacation spot be any better?

    26. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by klang · · Score: 1

      According to this article

      Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea hold 40 percent of our government debt. (That's why we talk nice to them.) "By helping keep mortgage rates from rising, China has come to play an enormous and little-noticed role in sustaining the American housing boom" (NYT, Dec. 4, 2004). Read that twice. We owe our housing boom to China, because they want us to keep buying all that stuff they manufacture.

      China is becomming more and more interesting.. and we are buying more and more goods from them (loads of things are designed in "the West" and produced in China) and they are Communist but that doesn't mean that everybody is equal, far from it ("some are more equal than others" in the Animal Farm sense of Communism). They have a huge "worker class" who have no rights. If they have no rights so no rights are abused .. simple. ... and still most of the electronic stuff we buy is produced in China, so we have already accepted their point of view, haven't we?

    27. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rest of the world will remember that when China and Korea reposess the United States after it inevitably defaults on its debts.

    28. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by hplasm · · Score: 0

      So it's about competition then?

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    29. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by tengwar · · Score: 1

      In Europe, they only hold the passport in hotels to copy the information into the police forms. You never need to leave it with them, and I never do. You're correct on reqt to carry id in some contries, and some countries (e.g. France) do track foreigners.

    30. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by the-build-chicken · · Score: 1

      lmao...if only I could mod that

    31. Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >They have a huge "worker class" who have no rights.

      They have a massive population that continually chooses to endure their status quo. Most will defend the system, even privately. Americans have the idea that Chinese are generally an oppressed people, but relatively few Chinese people hold this opinion. If they *did*, they have the makings of the biggest revolution in the history of the world.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  46. I-5 is the Information Superhighway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? You're not using the free WiFi at the Peace Arch?

  47. Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does this have to do with "Your Rights _Online_"? This story only applies to people who actually leave their keyboards once in awhile.

    1. Re:Your Rights Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, I've read this comment what, seven times now? Jesus!

  48. internal passports next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Freedom is on the march(TM)" --

    Just make sure your papers are in order before going out into the street.

  49. Saw this on CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    CNN said this is being done to prevent terrorism. I have some questions. Did any of the 9/11 hijackers enter the US through Mexico or Canada? Does this appear to be another case of lawmakers and politicians trying to look "tough on terrorism" when what they are doing has little, or nothing, to do with terrorism?

    1. Re:Saw this on CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      None of the 09/11 terrorists came in through canada. they entered via airports and many spent years in the country using their own names even though the fbi and cia was looking for them. obviously they didnt check the phone book.

  50. Seems Reasonable by n-baxley · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This seems perfectly reasonable. If you leave one gaping hole in US border patrol, like the entire northern border, then you may as well not patrol the other borders. Yes it's possible to forge a passport, but with 50 differnet formats and much lower security, dirvers licenses are much easier to get and to forge. This will certainly cut down on tourism on both sides of the border, but without it the border patrol is really missing a big loophole.

    And for those of you who say "What next?! Papers at the state border?" Give me a break this is nowhere near that extreme and you should know it.

    1. Re:Seems Reasonable by 15973 · · Score: 1

      Of COURSE papers at the border is ridiculous! They's just use National ID cards with RFID chips in 'em!

    2. Re:Seems Reasonable by illusion_2K · · Score: 1

      And of course your southern border is so secure. Give me a break.

      The millenium bomber was caught at the Canadian border before all the terrorist paranoia. Didn't seem to matter that he didn't need to have a passport, did it? All these things end up doing is annoying the 99.9999% of people who are travelling legitimatly.

    3. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You my friend are exactly the type of person who would have said. "Gassing jews? I dont believe my government would do anything that extreme!! They really are just internment camps, and those really are just shower heads!!" buffoon

    4. Re:Seems Reasonable by Quixote · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What gaping hole? Why would a bad guy try to enter legally from Canada, when he (and his minions) can waltz across the border from Mexico? Millions do it every year! And getting into Mexico (from a third country) is much more easier than getting into Canada.

    5. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not only at borders but within cities. Imagine your US city separated into "security zones" and you need to show ID and permit papers to pass from one area to another? Imagine being turned down from a job because the permit quota for people from your area has been reached?

      Don't think this is coming? Think again and wait... remember you saw it here and didn't believe it...

      want to protest? They have a zone for that too.

    6. Re:Seems Reasonable by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      Yes it's possible to forge a passport, but with 50 differnet formats and much lower security, dirvers licenses are much easier to get and to forge.

      One of the interesting psychological failures of photo ID cards is the assumption that the higher the government issuing the document, the more likely it is to be valid. Passport fraud is easier to pull off, and the passport is about average in counterfeit difficult, in comparison with US and Canadian licenses. Keep in mind however that, while it may be the same in complexity to forge a passport, the knowledge is easier to obtain.

      For the most part, the only people who counterfeit Ohio driver's licenses are Ohio counterfeiters. The California license is several times more complex than the Ohio license, however California would have, simply by virtue of its population, 3 times as many counterfeiters specializing in the California license than Ohioans specializing in the Ohio license. In spite of the higher difficulty, the networking of the California fraudsters makes the California license a more easily obtainable document at higher qualities than the Ohio document.

      Simply apply these networking synergies to the US passport. While there is a small need for US counterfeiters to forge the US passport, there is a high (and increasing) return on investment for foreigner counterfeiters. Assuming they network (and that's a safe assumption, even partial networking will do) the counterfeit difficulty of the passport, regardless of its complexity, will be no match to the unified counterfeiting effort. (Use the same arguments with a National ID card, except that a National ID card will be counterfeited by all the professionals here in the US as well.)

      Also, passport fraud is sensitive to gateway documents...(arguably more sensitive than driver's licenses) so if you're successful in getting a photo driver's license, you're 85% of the way to getting a passport.

      If you leave one gaping hole in US border patrol, like the entire northern border, then you may as well not patrol the other borders.

      They used to say this with regards to Puerto Rico...a relatively poor, hispanic country which, by an odd sequence of geopolitical events, is a US territory with Americans. Puerto Ricans cross freely. After an influx of economic migrants, things cooled down and border crossing numbers are stable. From a security point of view economic migrants are just not a big priority, so focusing our energies away from the southern and norther borders makes sense.

    7. Re:Seems Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "was caught at the Canadian border before all the terrorist paranoia."

      Paranoia fucker ?

      We lost thousands of people bitch - that's not paranoia , that's reality.

      As far as millenium guy , he was cought by accident - completely random occurence.

      In any case , fuck you Canadians - you need us more than we need you.

      All we need to do is close the fucking border and all you fuckers will literally go bankrupt.

  51. They won't be caught out again by panurge · · Score: 1

    The CIA is making sure it doesn't get caught with its pants down on the 200th anniversary of 1812. They're going to make sure that the Brits, the Canadians and the Indians don't just walk in and burn down the White House a second time. (Yes, I know it was actually in 1814, but the war officially started in 1812.)

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  52. M$ again by jlebrech · · Score: 1

    Is that Microsoft again, you can go anywhere without one of those passport things nowadays.

  53. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by beckett · · Score: 1

    well, it was nice and convenient to travel down to washington with nothing but a driver's license. i live in vancouver and i dip across the border once a few times a month to get gas becuase it's just a little way out of my aimless daily commute. now i gotta carry a passport with me? that extra hassle isn't worth it, and a lot of border towns that rely on crossborder shopping are gonna be SOL.

    i have a lot of american friends that travel to canada on a whim and with minimal ID. too bad they won't be let back into their own country now without a damn passport.

  54. Kinder, Safer Nation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because the assholes who planebombed NYC and DC all had passports, were known terrorists, and were connected on the record with the assholes who bombed the WTC in 1993. Mohammed Atta's passport was somehow found fluttering atop the burning steel slag of the WTC - even tougher than the 2 planes' 4 blackbox recorders, which have never been reported found. I feel safer already.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Kinder, Safer Nation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Moderation +4
      70% Insightful
      20% Informative
      10% Troll

      OK, who gave Condoleeza Rice TrollMod points? Isn't she supposed to be busy kissing some Chinese ass, so they keep buying our increasingly radioactive debt?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Kinder, Safer Nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..." Mohammed Atta's passport was somehow found fluttering atop the burning steel slag of the WTC.."
      and beside it was found a perfect replica of HLO's
      rifle with a cracked lense in the sight, a series of pornographic audio tapes, purportedly of JFK and MM, and a singed handwritten note, signed by Elvis , Jim Morrison and Ambrose Bierce, claiming responsibility.

    3. Re:Kinder, Safer Nation by John+Seminal · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Because the assholes who planebombed NYC and DC all had passports, were known terrorists, and were connected on the record with the assholes who bombed the WTC in 1993. Mohammed Atta's passport was somehow found fluttering atop the burning steel slag of the WTC - even tougher than the 2 planes' 4 blackbox recorders, which have never been reported found. I feel safer already.

      And it all could have been prevented by steel cockpit doors. Something so simple, that any retard airline should have fixed right away. Instead they come out will all sorts of scare tactics. I can honestly say I am not scared of terrorists. If they come on an airplane, I am tearing the motherfucker a new asshole. No boxcutter is going to scare me. I am more worried about pilots who fly 12 hours in a row, with no sleep. I hate to say it, but maybe if those flights had a couple of people with balls, none of 9/11 would have happened. But Osama was right, he hit us where we are soft, in our decadent self-absorbed, gluttonous, sit_on_our_ass selves. The avarage American knows nothing about our foriegn policy, who we are helping, who we are bombing and killing, who we are supplying guns to. And the avarage American does not give a fuck. So fuck us for being so dumb and self absorbed. At least we have the red necks, whom government can call on in the thousands to go fight.

      I think it should be very easy to travel, to have a good time. I would like to see passports done away with, people free to go anywhere they want. If we did not have a fucked up foriegn policy, the Arabs in the middle east would be loving us and wanting to be more like us. But it is hard to admire a wealthy country when they bomb your homeland. We never should have gotten involved in the middle east. The first universities in the world were all in the Middle East. The people who lived in that area welcomed Americans with open arms, wanting nothing but to enjoy our company and share a cup of tea. They did not want to change our culture, or for us to change theirs, but to enjoy our differences.

      Before the first war, gas was $0.95 a gallon. Today, gas is over $2.30 a gallon. Tell me again why we are over there, because it ain't security! We need to get rid of the Isrealie lobbyists from our country, they are more of a problem than Mexicans who come here to work 6 or 7 months and go home. But once again, we got them rednecks patroling the boarder keeping us safe. And at the same time making another group of people hate us.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    4. Re:Kinder, Safer Nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disinfo Rule No.1 - Mock people who try to get the truth out...

      " Mohammed Atta's passport...and beside it was found a perfect replica of HLO's
      rifle with a cracked lense in the sight, a series of pornographic audio tapes, purportedly of JFK and MM, and a singed handwritten note, signed by Elvis , Jim Morrison and Ambrose Bierce, claiming responsibility."

      Very good! Now which of these points [in your world anyways] do you want to agree with...

      (A.) Atta's passport was never found ?
      (B.) Atta's passport was found ?
      (C.) Atta's luggage was never found ?
      (D.) Atta's luggage was lost in boarding the plane and when it was "found" was filled with incriminating documents?
      (E.) The remains of the jet engine found in the street by the WTC, that although different from the plane that actually crashed into the building, probably fell off a truck that was passing the area at the time.
      (F.) Skyscrapers in Spain burn and stand for two or more weeks, because they are built better and stronger than the tallest building in the United States.

      I dunno what happened on 9-11, but I like to keep an open mind to things. To many unanswered questions on this.

    5. Re:Kinder, Safer Nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no problem with lack of balls on the planes. It was not that we were decadent. It was simply that in the history of hijackings that most Americans are familiar with, the hijacker is a rational player and wants to get out of the situation alive. Now that we have realized that is no longer the case (and they did realize that with the extra time afforded on Flight 77) box cutters will no longer be an effective means of commandeering a plane.

    6. Re:Kinder, Safer Nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also it wasn't the box cutters as much as it was the threat of a bomb that gave the hijackers power.

    7. Re:Kinder, Safer Nation by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1
      (F.) Skyscrapers in Spain burn and stand for two or more weeks, because they are built better and stronger than the tallest building in the United States.

      I would think jet fuel burns considerably hotter than paper and other material you'd find in a normal high-rise fire. I'm not suggesting there wasn't a design flaw, but the structure did suffer some pretty extensive damage by having a 737 crash a hole into it.

    8. Re:Kinder, Safer Nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is widely believed that the hijackers had far more than boxcutters. There are reports of them using pepper spray, bomb threats, proper knives, and even firearms. The actual transcripts from people calling off the planes are full of clues like this...all ignored by the powers that be. The story is "they used boxcutters" because admitting anything else gets scary.

    9. Re:Kinder, Safer Nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the "crash" and "jet fuel" argument.

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=WTC+%22jet+fu el%22+burning&btnG=Google+Search

      The story still blows me away. I have no idea what happened that day, and I witnessed it all day on tv.

      Hard to believe the tin foil hat crowd, but also hard to ignore some of the issues they raise.

      One thing I am certain of, we will never get the true story.

    10. Re:Kinder, Safer Nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:Kinder, Safer Nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually under US law (FCC?) it is illegal for a passenger to attack a hijacker.

    12. Re:Kinder, Safer Nation by klang · · Score: 1

      Remind me never to play poker with a known Terrorist.. The plane became the bomb when it crashed into the building, before that, "the bomb" was a major bluff!

    13. Re:Kinder, Safer Nation by jeblucas · · Score: 1

      Mohammed Atta's luggage was lost in the quick layover in Boston, MA. (He flew from Portland, ME to Boston to the WTC). They found his wallet, passport, and a letter to his family explaining his martyrdom in it.

      --
      blarg.
    14. Re:Kinder, Safer Nation by evilviper · · Score: 1
      And it all could have been prevented by steel cockpit doors. Something so simple, that any retard airline should have fixed right away.

      Actually, it was an FCC rule that (even locked) cockpit doors had to be easy to break-through, so pilots could get out in the event of a crash. Let's try to put the blame where it belongs.

      I hate to say it, but maybe if those flights had a couple of people with balls, none of 9/11 would have happened.

      While I certainly agree with you, and have said as much for many years before 2001, I really think there is a lot more blame to go around, than those on the plane.

      Every news story that ever talks about a person being taken hostage, or even witness to a crime, has ALWAYS included a prepared statement by the anchors or some police chief saying over and over how you should call the authorities, and then be a good boy and don't do anything... It's rather infurating when they talk about someone who just risk their own safety, and saved several people's lives, then have the anchor turn around and say what he did was wrong, and you should never do anything.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  55. Papers please! by plimsoll · · Score: 1
    What's next, some kind of international ID card that we'll be expected to show at every border crossing?

    HOMER: By the way, I was being sarcastic.
    MARGE: Well, duh.

    --
    Snickersnee3: Build your own 3-watt Luxeon Star headlamp from scratch
  56. Will this hurt draft dodgers? by nysus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have to wonder if one motivation for this change is that it might make it tougher for Americans to dodge future drafts.

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    1. Re:Will this hurt draft dodgers? by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Well, IIRC, Canada has an extradition treaty with the US regarding draft dodgers now. It may have something to do with that, but who really knows.

      I have a feeling that if I took off for Yellowknife or something up that way, no one would know the difference anyway.

    2. Re:Will this hurt draft dodgers? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling that if I took off for Yellowknife or something up that way, no one would know the difference anyway.

      The polar bears would know the difference. You would taste different than caribou, and they'd likely appreciate the dietary variety.

  57. Offer accepted! by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 1

    I accept your terms.

  58. OMG!!! by master_p · · Score: 0

    has BillG become a president? now I need a .NET Passport to enter the country? ...oh wait a minute...'Passport' means a real government document, not a .NET Passport...phew...that capital 'P' really worried me for a minute!

  59. Re: not really by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 5, Funny
    come to canada instead - all of the beauty - none of the ph34r

    It's so busy with tourists during your summer month.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  60. not new by bendawg · · Score: 1

    Last time I came back across the border in a car from Canada (with a group of Americans), our group had packed our passports in our luggage, thinking that we would not need them, since they were not required when crossing TO Canada.
    However, when we tried to just show the US immigration agent our driver's licenses, they made us pull over, get out our passports, and take them inside.
    That was over a year ago, so either that particular agent was extra strict, or this has been the policy for a while.

  61. The Terminal by a16 · · Score: 1

    Are you kidding, this is awesome!

    If I'm reading this correctly, I can get on a flight from New York to Toronto. On the way there, I'll eat my passport. When I get there Canada will refuse me entry and send me back to New York. Then, and this is the great bit, they won't let me back in for not having a passport! This can only mean one thing - I'll live in "The Terminal"!

    Then I can live my movie-dream of building myself a bed out of chairs in a conveniently quiet part of the airport that is constantly under construction, and I will live by collecting luggage carts and taking the money from the cart return machine in order to purchase food at Burger King.

    And if what Hollywood teaches me is true, it is only a matter of time before a hot air hostess falls in love with me!

    1. Re:The Terminal by xander2032 · · Score: 1

      I believe they'll still be able to send you back...

      However! If you really want them to keep you, just go to the nearest US consulate or embassy and renounce your US citizenship in writing! The US will NEVER take you back! :)

  62. We're from Microsoft and we're here to help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
  63. Confusing by techguy911 · · Score: 1

    "most Canadians will require a passport to cross into the United States"
    Was anybody else confused by the wording of the summary. I got stuck on that line trying to figure out if that meant Canadians are required, or they are requiring. And what does "most" mean, some Canadians aren't required, or not all Canadians are implementing this requirement... Sheesh. I'm sure it all becomes clear in the article, but that line really jumbled me up.

  64. has anyone asked Canada??? by the-build-chicken · · Score: 5, Funny

    by 2008 Americans who crossed freely into Canada will be unable to return to the United States without a passport

    Has anyone asked Canada what they think about all the dickhead americans that didn't bring their passport with them being left in their country...american arrogance at it's best:

    America: And if you don't bring your passport we won't let you back.

    Canada: Hang aboot...don't we get a say in who get's to stay in our country and for how long?

    America: Is that oil?

    Canada: Oh shit

    1. Re:has anyone asked Canada??? by houghi · · Score: 1



      They will be kept somewhere safe as 'enemy combatants' on a non-disclosed place on the Faroer Islands.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:has anyone asked Canada??? by benow · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, Yahk or Couttes in AB would welcome the stranded, I'm sure. There's always a bit of work to do around the farm.

    3. Re:has anyone asked Canada??? by T-Ranger · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rember that Canada has almost as much frozen wasteland as does Russia. Pleanty of room for "reeducation" camps. Scratch that, this is Americans we're talking about... Pleanty of room for "education" camps.

    4. Re:has anyone asked Canada??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROTFLMAO! That is so funny on so many levels.

    5. Re:has anyone asked Canada??? by InsaneGeek · · Score: 1

      If it's that be of a concern, than Canada can have the same policy, you can't come into the country with out a passport. Gives them the say in who get's in their country, who get's to stay in the coutnry and how long they can stay.
      If they don't want to do it, and concerned about getting US citizens to the US, then the person gets sent to the consulate of the country they say they are from. The land of the consulate isn't Canadian so they aren't on their ground anymore.

      Really the US/Canada border is one of the last border holdouts on this whole thing, I can't count the number of times I was woken up on a night train traveling in Europe to show my passport to the same guy in the same trip going from friendly country to friendly country some 10 years ago.

    6. Re:has anyone asked Canada??? by dpud1234 · · Score: 1

      I am a Canadian living in the US and when I travel back to Canada (with my Canadian passport) I am often (not always) asked by the Canadian Border guards for proof of legal residence in the US. I asked once why Canada cared and was basically told they want to ensure that I can return to the US. It is not much of stretch to imagine Canada insisting that Americans coming into Canada need a passport because "Canada wants to ensure you can get home."

    7. Re:has anyone asked Canada??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's okay, we just ship them to Syria, like the US does with darker-skinned Canadian citizens who happen to passing through one of their international airports.

    8. Re:has anyone asked Canada??? by klang · · Score: 1

      America: And if you don't bring your passport we won't let you back.

      well, it's real easy:

      Canada: you don't have a passport, you can't get into our country.

      that's how it is in most countries; if you can't prove who you are, you can't get in. "I am a Citizen" so what? Everybody is a Citizen somewhere.

    9. Re:has anyone asked Canada??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You just get stuck going from side to side on the Ambassador Bridge, until one side decides to drag you inside to the customs office. Been there, done that. We even got such in that loop for one pass in Buffalo/Niagra once.

      Yeah, American's carry no special ID and never empty the car's trunk (boot for you aliens ;-) ) of junk before leaving home. Sometimes the customs guys do remind you to plan ahead better...

    10. Re:has anyone asked Canada??? by tengwar · · Score: 1

      That may have been the case 10 years ago, but most of the EU falls under the Schengen treaty now. The border posts are unmanned on the roads, and there are no border controls on the airlines. Can't answer for train as I don't use it internationally. UK is not a Schengen signatory, so a passport is required (except I think for the border to Eire).

  65. Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you Mr. Bush for spreading all the "freedom" and peace. As we can see daily on TV the world just loves you...

  66. Please! by fm6 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Don't give the Patriot Actors any ideas!

    Seriously. They've already shown they'll use whatever loopholes they can find in the Bill of Rights. Like right now, we've got several thousand people incarcerated on the territory of an unfriendly power, because it'd be illegal to incarcerate them anywhere else!

    1. Re:Please! by Kenrod · · Score: 1


      The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-US Citizens.

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    2. Re:Please! by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      The Bill of Rights applies to anyone located witin the United States. Which is the reason why the non-criminals, non-POWs are stored in Cuba. If they so much as touched US soil, then they would instantly gain rights such as habius corpus and due process.

    3. Re:Please! by Stealth+Potato · · Score: 1
      Really? Where does it say that? ;)

      Furthermore, one could argue that it is hypocritical to deny these "inalienable" rights to people simply because they are not citizens of or located in the United States. I know that the Declaration of Independence is not part of our Law, but it is an embodiment of the same founding principles enshrined in our Constitution. It would seem to me that if "all men are created equal", it would be arrogant and improper to aggressively deny others those "inalienable" rights we hold four ourselves.

    4. Re:Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      incarcerated on the territory of an unfriendly power, because it'd be illegal to incarcerate them anywhere else!

      So to sumarize, you admit is legal to hold them there. Anywhere else it would be illegal.

    5. Re:Please! by nebaz · · Score: 1

      Says who? I don't see anything in the Constitution about it not applying to US citizens.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    6. Re:Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's legal, but it's a loophole, and it goes against the spirit of the law and of our nation.

      Just because it's leagal, it dosen't mean it should be done. In the old days it was legal to burn heretics and stone suspected adulterers. Was it right to do so?

    7. Re:Please! by Viv · · Score: 1

      Actually, while I don't know the case law on this, many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights should apply to anyone that the United States wishes to act upon.

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

      Congress simply CANNOT make a law respecting this, domestically or abroad.

      "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

      No mention of this being limited to domestic quartering.

      "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

      No person. Period.

      "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

      In ALL criminal prosecutions.

      "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

      No exceptions.

      Those amendments that refer to "the people" specifically should probably be construed to include only people actually present in the United States.

      Otherwise, these are restrictions on the behavior of the government, not restrictions on where it may or may not do these things.

      If I'm mistaken, and you can show me where in the Constitution it suggests that these are limits on the behavior of the government within our territorial borders only, I'd like to see it.

    8. Re:Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Oh, how I long for those days...

    9. Re:Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be all for the invasion of any country that is violating it then.

    10. Re:Please! by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      The terrorists incarcerated are not US Citizens and therefore the Bill of Rights does not apply to them.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    11. Re:Please! by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      It would seem to me that if "all men are created equal", it would be arrogant and improper to aggressively deny others those "inalienable" rights we hold four ourselves.

      The people that wrote that had slaves, so it's pretty meaningless really. They just didn't view them as "men", probably the same thing that's going on with "the terrorists". After all, they eat babies and are evildoers...

  67. A Better Idea by nurb432 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Just close the borders totally to all non US citizens. Anyone caught coming across for any reason, shoot them for trespassing.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  68. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by wolf- · · Score: 1

    20 days after the fall of the towers, I had a business trip to Toronto. Drove over from Buffalo. Going over, Canadians only concerned if I was transporting cigs.

    On the way back over, never had to show id, only asked where I was born, and if I was bringing booze back into the country.

    Same thing about 3 months ago.

    Its about time they start checking folks.

    --
    ----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
  69. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good. Fingerprinting and archiving dietary preferences of all those nasty foreigners will seriously reduce criminality! Well done! ...you guys have serious issues.

  70. this is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    coming back across the bridge from Niagra Falls back in 2002 we spent a very unpleasant 2 hours chatting with INS dogfaces because my wife was dumb enough to answer "baghdad" when asked the cursory "where were you born". Her Massachusetts drivers license, they quite bluntly explained, did not state her nationality. She was nationalized before the INS guy was born...but that only makes finding computerized records of naturalization that much harder, the newer stuff is more likeley to be on line. We never have this problem coming back from Montreal.

  71. Waste of money by mlorentz · · Score: 1

    "Age 16 and older: The passport fee is $55. The security surcharge is $12. The execution fee is $30. The total is $97." - travel.state.gov What a waste of money!

    1. Re:Waste of money by shadowsurfr1 · · Score: 1

      Glad I don't have to travel out of the country for a while.

    2. Re:Waste of money by milesbparty · · Score: 1

      Uhh, passports are good for 10 years...not a big deal.

      --
      eMelody Web Directory add your site today!
    3. Re:Waste of money by mlorentz · · Score: 1

      Uhh, I live in Minnesota and I've been to Canada a number of times. $97 for a passport is a lot to a college student. We take a trip every year to Canada with our Fraternity. If everyone is required to have a passport I don't think those trips will happen anymore. This will stop all kinds of tourist trips.

    4. Re:Waste of money by op00to · · Score: 1

      What about the kinds of tourist trips that are frequented by rich folks who could care less about carrying their passport?

    5. Re:Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'll skip the execution, thanks."

    6. Re:Waste of money by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > "Age 16 and older: The passport fee is $55. The security surcharge is $12. The execution fee is $30. The total is $97." - travel.state.gov What a waste of money!

      Yeah. I paid my $30, and I still haven't been executed!

    7. Re:Waste of money by klang · · Score: 1

      you will be, if you forget your passport when leaving the country ;-)

  72. What does 1984 have to do with anything? by theantix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh nevermind, excuse me... Bin Laden is on the teevee again so it's time for our two minutes of Hate. I hear W Bush has a conference scheduled afterwards to talk about all the Peace his wars have brought, how the new anti-terrorism laws make America free, and how strong the country is are with a leader like himself.

    After that, then I'll maybe have some time to listen to your lame 1984 analogies -- you paranoid nutcase.

    --
    501 Not Implemented
  73. Ho Hum. by fixer007 · · Score: 1

    Who cares.

    I already bring my passport with me whenever I travel. I show it leaving and entering the country if it is required or not. I find it makes travelling that much easier.

    If you don't want to go to the US without a passport, then don't.

    1. Re:Ho Hum. by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 0

      Yes, but this is /., where one is morally superior simply by acting as if one is outraged.

  74. Say goodbye... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Goodbye Michael J. Fox, and your %^$^@#$@#$ family ties reruns. Your 'Alex P. Keaton' character is probably responsable for all the new assholes in the GOP...

    Goodbye Celine, you crappy Quebec whore. Whitney does twice as much coke you could ever handle, and she doesn't say,'eh' all the time.

    Goodbye Crash Test Dummies. Your songs needed more lyrics anyway.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Say goodbye... by scotch · · Score: 1
      Goodbye Skinny Puppy - you guys give me nightmares.

      Goodbye Canadian Money - I could never take it seriously so would spend too much when visiting.

      Goodbye Kids in the Hall - oh wait, we already said goodbye.

      Goodbye Bryan Adams - I hope you get hit by a bus.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
  75. Oh Canada... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I better start practicing my new anthem.

    I live near the Canadian border (I can see Canada from my cubicle if I stand up) and travel there frequently. I mean, we go there for lunch sometimes.

    My serious girlfriend is Canadian, and we are strongly considering moving to Canada, mostly for work & family reasons. However, the political climate in the US is doing nothing to make me want to stay.

    And save the flames -- all you "We're the BEST!!!1" patri-bots can go back to arguing over whether Jeff Gordon or Junior sucks more -- it makes about as much difference as your political opinion will once the Republicans are through removing your rights in the name of Freedumb.

  76. Was almost silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a citizen of a third country and Canadian law requires me to obtain a Canadian visa before entering Canada. My passport also needs to be stamped unless it has been stamped within the last 6 months. I remember the last time I was at the border and the guy just waved me by after asking me where I was going and I had to make him send me to the border office to get my passport stamped (I didn't want to risk the consequences of breaking the law). And I'm even the "wrong" skin color.

    It's really not that much more of an inconvenience to carry a fricking passport with you if you are going to be LEAVING the country - in fact it's downright common sense to do so.

    Whining about having to produce a passport is just plain silly.

  77. Will there be in-state checks, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what will this mean to the massive border patrol roadblocks they set up on Interstate 89 or Interstate 91 up in Vermont ... over 100 miles from the Canadian border?

    Gonna ask me for a passport to drive inside Vermont?

    1. Re:Will there be in-state checks, too? by isotope23 · · Score: 1

      That comes in 2009.....

      And to think My old Sig was :

      "Next Stop Amerika! Papers Please, Have your Papers Ready Please!"

      Oh the irony

      --
      Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
    2. Re:Will there be in-state checks, too? by psykocrime · · Score: 1

      Gonna ask me for a passport to drive inside Vermont?

      Pretty soon you'll need a passport to cross from one US state to another, at the very least. Orwell's world of '1984' is coming to America, little by little.

      Viva La Resistance.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    3. Re:Will there be in-state checks, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny! Have you actually read 1984?

    4. Re:Will there be in-state checks, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Of course he hasnt.

      They don't know anything about Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia either, because if they did, they wouldn't be comparing the US to either country.

  78. Passports? Not very effective. by Sporkus · · Score: 1

    Obviously, the best way to keep trespassers at bay are dogs, or bees. Or the dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees at you.

  79. Aus Passe! by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Shouldn't be too long before interstate travel in the US requires a passport. That'll finally put an end to criminals moving to another state to hide from the law.

    Reminds me of the old Apple ][ game of Castle Wolfenstein. "Aus Passe!" You need a pass to go from room to room when challenged by a soldier.

    Also, a great way to raise government revenues. Last time I had a passport I forked over $65 for it. As there's a lot of people who travel between Detroit and Windsor, it'll either kill tourism, nightlife, etc. or people will cough up the dough and fund more government spending. yay.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  80. Serious Conclusion by realitybath1 · · Score: 1

    Its because American partiers go to Canada to smoke good pot, and come back to the US to vomit cheap beer.

    1. Re:Serious Conclusion by dema · · Score: 1

      We actually did see two cars in the parking lot of the pizza place that obviously had people smoking pot in them. Both had U.S. plates and the employees at the pizza place said it's something they see all the time (it was around 2AM).

  81. Addendum by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1
    Everyone I've ever seen pulled over on the highway in Kentucky was black.
    Or bearing Ohio plates. Ohio and Kentucky have a fair amount of emnity. Having Ohio plates in Kentucky or vice versa seems to make you eligible for getting pulled over. As someone who grew up in Kentucky near the Ohio border and now lives in Ohio, but visits family in Kentucky, I've had ample opportunity to learn how valid this truism is.

    And for the sake of the racial profiling angle, I'm white enough to blind people without my clothes on, not that a lack of clothes is generally the case while driving...

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:Addendum by yesteraeon · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you're not blinding people BECAUSE you've got no clothes on?

  82. US has already become USSR by dearborn70 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am Canadian citizen, and was born in a Muslim country. I daily commute to a US university. In post 9/11 , everyday I am fingerprinted and photographed and back ground check. This whole process takes around 3 hours everyday. By now i know the names of all the US border inspectors. I have come to know now that some Canadians-Americans are more white than others.

    1. Re:US has already become USSR by Gherikill · · Score: 0

      More white than others? Isn't that obvious?

    2. Re:US has already become USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you were in the USSR? Please relate some stories how it was such the Utopia compared to the US.

    3. Re:US has already become USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, it is now... the roles have been reversed.

    4. Re:US has already become USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know - you need to thank your muslim brothers for that.

      As an American I am perfectly fine with the policy of doublechecking fuckers who are most likely to commit this sort of bullshit again.
      If you don't like it - get the fuck out of here.

      Simple as that - my country, my rules and be happy we are not lynching towelheads the way they do in Britain.

      " I have come to know now that some Canadians-Americans are more white than others."

      Sure, because Polish or Irish Americans are very unlikely to fly planes into tall buildings.
      On the other hand there is a long history of fuckers from muslim nations trying to do things like that.

      Again, thank your own fucking people for that.

  83. Going to affect WNY 19-21 year olds by Deviant · · Score: 1
    I live in Buffalo, NY and, with the drinking/gambling age being 19 in Canada and their dollar worth next to nothing in the last 90s, I spent a couple weekends a month for years going back and forth to Niagara Falls, Ontario to exercise these rights denied me. The Canadians, on the other hand, come down to the Buffalo area to escape their high GST sales taxes and higher Toronto prices just about as much as we go up there to party. The previous poster was right and this usually was just a formality where you had to name your citizenship and perhaps show them a driver's licence and have your licence plate to be photographed. I believe the automatic camera system that does this as you drive up does OCR and shows them your details in the booth but I have never been able to verify that.

    Tens of thousands make this underage pilgrimage every weekend and I imagine you will see a huge number of passport applications in the area if this happens. Thankfully I will no longer have to wait in the traffic backups on the bridge this will create.

    1. Re:Going to affect WNY 19-21 year olds by orangepeel · · Score: 1

      ...and have your licence plate to be photographed. I believe the automatic camera system that does this as you drive up does OCR and shows them your details in the booth but I have never been able to verify that.

      In some states, no license plate is required (or issued) for the front of the car. North Carolina is one such state. I don't know what those border cameras are really for (I'm presuming you're referring to the ones that your car faces before you get a green light to drive up to the customs booth) but they can't be all that useful if they're really just for checking license plates.

      --
      Whoever designed level 61 in Frozen Bubble is a sadistic bastard.
    2. Re:Going to affect WNY 19-21 year olds by xander2032 · · Score: 1

      Same here in Michigan as well. We only have rare plates.

      From what I've seen, I think the cameras are pointed at occupants of the vehicle?

      They're probably comparing our faces to those of known terrorists in a database. I mean heck, if the casinos can do it, why not the government eh? lol

    3. Re:Going to affect WNY 19-21 year olds by Deviant · · Score: 1

      No - the camera take a picture of the rear licence plate. The camera is positioned facing towards the booth about 10 feet back and at night you can see it flash forward at you in your rear view mirror. There is also one as you describe taking a picture of the occupants.

  84. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > said "USA"

    Many, many moons ago, my employer sent a bunch of us through Port Huron. Of the 8(!) of wedged into the mini-van, I was the only one to respond "United States." The others replied "America." Funny how I was the one to get the cordail "Welcome to Canada, eh."

  85. Washington border will be a parking lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm up in Bellingham, a mere 20 miles from the border. People are really worried about this change, as we get thousands of tourists and business visitors on a daily basis. In addition to requiring passports, other articles have indicated the border guard intends to require more paperwork to be filled out.

    The border crossing has no way to process the number of people who cross daily. There is literally no where for people to park while they're filling out forms, and there is not enough staff or lanes to smoothly handle the change. As a local put it, the first day there will be cars parked for 10 miles. Within a week, they will be gone...because no one will be coming to the US.

    None of these changes would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists. I am beginning to wonder if the real reason behind the Patriot Act and the draconian changes to our border checkpoints is to create a Fortress America, that has no contact with the outside world. Won't that be a pleasant joy to live in.

  86. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I need a passport just to log in to my hotmail account

  87. Diminishing benefits by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    If it becomes more common to require passports, then more people will routinely get passports, and the passport office will be more overwhelmed with work, and more people who should not be given passports will get them. If passports are routinely checked, instead of only suspcious situations, then border agents will be overwhelmed with work, and more people who should never be allowed to cross the border, will do so.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  88. Pointless: Canada, United States, same thing... by AKosygin · · Score: 1

    The last time I took an international flight and landed for a stop in VANCOUVER, I crossed through UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IMMIGRATION! The last time I checked, Vancouver was on the CANADIAN SIDE of the border! So unless the Canadians decided to change their seal to an American Eagle and had George W. Bush as their President on the wall, I was definitely crossing U.S. borders in VANCOUVER which is a CANADIAN CITY!

    I find that rather dumb, because we already treat any entry in to the U.S. OR Canada as one border and not two, why bother wasting tax dollars on the border in between when it should have been done already on the Canadian side since we are doing that already? Because apparently, jurisdiction between Canada and the U.S. didn't matter.

    1. Re:Pointless: Canada, United States, same thing... by SQFreak · · Score: 1

      Yep. Same thing happened to me in Winnipeg, Manitoba when I was on my way to Chicago. I pre-cleared US Immigration and Customs in Winnipeg.

    2. Re:Pointless: Canada, United States, same thing... by conteXXt · · Score: 1

      "why bother wasting tax dollars on the border in between"

      To maintain governmental jurisdictions. We both like it better this way. We have a political left and don't embrace gun-culture fully yet.

      All major Canadian Airports have US customs offices in them. It allows us (and you) to enter in smaller airports when we (you) get to the US.

      Not all US airports are entry points (normally). This fixes that.

      --
      The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
    3. Re:Pointless: Canada, United States, same thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most canadian cities have US representatives at their airports to pre-clear travellers through US customs. Its so we don't have to wait in customs lines in the US when we land. It's also so that canadian airplanes can land in US domestic terminals.

      This makes sense, as there are so many flights between the two countries each day

  89. similar thing happened to me. by sagekoala06 · · Score: 1

    a friend and i made a trip over to st. catharines for a week. as we passed into canada we were asked the standard who are you, where are you going, for how long. upon crossing back into the US the guy at the border kept on badgering me about if i had any crystal meth in my car. (i assume because i was from iowa, and we have a wee issue with it here) It was rediculous, they were complete and total asses to us, serched our entire car looked through our crap. after roughly an hour they got depressed about not finding anything, and let us go.

  90. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummm, isn't this why we have passports?

    The whole idea of a passport is to prevent foreigners from coming into the US without authorization. You need one when you go to any other country except Canada.

    Now that exception is gone. There's no "privacy violation" here - at least not one that hasn't existed for many years.

    Somehow, though, Slashdot likes to blow stories like this out of proportion.

  91. CHIP!!! by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    I want a chip-inplant. I want biometrics in my passport. I want to geve a drop of blood to identify myself when I board a plane. I want the my government to tap my phone and take away all my civil liberties.

    and I want it NOW, not in 1984.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  92. The New Berlin Wall by SoupIsGood+Food · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is reflecting the new political reality that the current Administration and the ruling party in congress considers left-leaning first world nations as ideological enemies to be isolated and opposed on the global stage. It's a clear sign that the US considers open access to Canada and Canadian culture as being counterproductive to their ideals in reshaping America to the Dickensian nightmare of theocracy and plutocracy.

    This isn't a security issue. This is an issue of punishing America's closest allies for following a different political destiny. It's to protect Michiganders and New Hampshirites from being exposed to affordable healthcare, gay rights and decrinminalized marijuana.

    Don't think it's true? Look at the ruthless, relentless and sometimes threatening and bellicose criticism of Europe by the right-wing blogosphere, professional pundits, and administration officials like Rumsfeldt. Canada is culturally closer to Europe at this point than the US... and the US will be punishing them for that at every opportunity.

    It's a new Berlin wall, to discourage cultural contamination. I can think of nothing more heartbreaking.

    SoupIsGood Food

    1. Re:The New Berlin Wall by xander2032 · · Score: 1

      Holy crap! They have affordable health care? And what are these gay rights you speak of? You mean Canadians have the right to be happy?? And they have pot too?!?!

      No wonder they're trying to keep us in Michigan! I'm swimming over to the Canadian side tonight, wish me luck! ;)

    2. Re:The New Berlin Wall by FlyingOrca · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Canada is culturally closer to Europe at this point than the US... and the US will be punishing them for that at every opportunity.

      Heh. Just wait 'til we JOIN the EU and watch their knickers twist, then. ;-)

      Actually, it's a pretty good idea... unscientific sample, of course, but most of my friends support it. And the funny thing about that is that, through some weird chance, most of us were born in the States but are now either landed immigrants or Canadian citizens. All mighty glad to be here, too.

      --
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    3. Re:The New Berlin Wall by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      The New Berlin Wall? WTF?

      Sounds like an insulting comparason, to me. It looks tighening up on paperwork, and that's about it. I can't see what all the fuss is about. There are more effective ways to discourage cultural contamination.

      The fingerprinting, OTOH...

      Nice nick, BTW.

    4. Re:The New Berlin Wall by SoupIsGood+Food · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are definite economic advantages to open borders with friendly countries. If you don't need a passport to go from London to Latvia via France, Germany and Poland, I don't understand why you'd need one to go from Seattle to Vancouver and back again. (And if you say it's because there's no international terrorism in Europe, I'm going to laugh at you until I barf on your loafers.)

      It's designed to slaughter the tourist economy of Montreal, Niagra Falls and Vancouver, and as an economic sanction against the "blue" states who do the most business with Canada - Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Illinois, Michigan and Washington.

      What used to be a pleasant weekend getaway to Niagra now requires monts of advanced planning if you don't already have a passport. Scratch that... with Bush-era budget cuts and exponential demand stemming from needing one to get into and out of Canada, it will take years to get your passport. It will only be slightly less painful than getting a greencard.

      Which kills all international tourism. Which helps put up that Berlin Wall.

      "So sorry about not being able to attend that conference in Stockholm, Mr. Evolutionary Biologist, but you should have planned ahead and got your passport application in to us three years ago. All this backlog from businessmen desparate to be able to get to clients north of the border, you see. Oh, and you've been mysteriously flagged as a terrorist, which will double the amount of time it takes a passport application to clear. No, we won't tell you why you were flagged or what you need to do to get un-flagged, because the law says we don't have to, you godless scum."

      It's an enormous deal, and if you can't see it, it's only becuase you were lied to: it's not "just" tightening up the paperwork. It's closing the longest open border in the world, because Liberal Democracies are the enemy. We cannot be allowed to experience what a truly free nation is like after ours stops being free. With this new passport nonsense, it's =already= less free.

      SoupIsGood Food

      (n00b. Check my UID. :p )

    5. Re:The New Berlin Wall by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      Perhaps, but I still think comparing it to the Berlin Wall is a bit on the extreme side.

      Heh. What I'd like to know is where the original SoupIsGoodFood is.

    6. Re:The New Berlin Wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yah right, excuse me i need to open a window to let out all the u`mmm... hot air. wake up dude it`s about control, tracking, and the limiting of movement of the people. it won`t just stop with bush. i`d hate to see hillary`s global village become a reality if she gets elected.

  93. I guess 100,000,000 dead is not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is amazing that people do not know that communist regimes executed 100,000,000 people in the last 100 years.

    It is also amazing that people do not know the basic difference between democratic and communist.

    I guess that /. readers would prefer being in North Korea where eving being suspected of making an anti-government statement puts you, your entire family, your parents and grandparents into a slave labor camp.

    See "Death, terror in N. Korea gulag" from http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3071466/

    1. Re:I guess 100,000,000 dead is not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because my step father beats my mom less frequently than my biological dad doesn't make my step father any better of a person.

    2. Re:I guess 100,000,000 dead is not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just to be on the same note but isnt communism an economic model of everything for everyone equally, while democracy is a political model of tyrrany of majority?

      while the 'cummunist' regimes are truly misnomers?

    3. Re:I guess 100,000,000 dead is not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is a straw argument

      just because I accidentally but gently touched your mother with my pinky I still did touch her in manner she did not approve. it does not make me any better person than your either fathers.

      just because I stole a loaf of bread to feed my family does not make me any better than the millionaire who just stole my grandmas 401.

      there is no difference if one cripple person whom is questioned to even have higher brain functions starves and if we drop a nuke on a city of civilians, afterall its murder, the body count does not matter

      again, I am sorry for you that you cannot see the shades of gray but rather perfer to kling to the world in black and white, good bad, with no variance between lesser of two evils.

  94. Detroit/Windsor border by aventius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I live in Detroit and when I was younger (read: 19 & 20 years old) I used to cross the border to hit up the bars in Windsor. Before 9/11, all I needed was my license and a copy of my birth certificate. After 9/11, its nearly impossible to get across without a Passport. Your license and copy of your birth certificate will not get you across anymore. Furthermore, your license and your real birth certificate does work but the border guards will harass you. So it looks like the US is adopting the policy of the Detroit border for the rest of its crossings.

    --
    [insert lame joke here]
    1. Re:Detroit/Windsor border by JohnAllison · · Score: 0
      It would appear that the US is adopting those techniques. My parents moved to Detroit in 2001. After WTC, I heard similar stories about passports and what not. They reminded me to get a passport, and sent me my birth certificate.

      I was CS major at UCSD (non-party school). We went to Tiajuana quite a bit. I came back using my CA diver's license nothing more. Honestly, WTF?

    2. Re:Detroit/Windsor border by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      Not true... I cross the Detroit/Winsor border all the time (I am American but I live in Canada). You can still cross both ways with a drivers licence or birth certificate, and most of the time they don't even ask for any ID at all (both ways).

      However, the whole passport thing is extremly stupid. 99.9% of the U.S./Canadian border has no border guards, and getting past the U.S. Canada border has to be just about the easiest border in the world to secretly cross. The passport thing is like threatening to prosecute hyjackers for flying without an FAA licence.

    3. Re:Detroit/Windsor border by aventius · · Score: 1

      True, sometime they don't ask but when they do... I have been told by Border guards that they won't accept a driver's license (as it does not denote any citizenship). Furthermore, I've been told that although they will accept a birth certificate, they no longer will accept a copy of it and that they prefer that you do not use a birth certificate. Before I got a passport, they continually harassed me (although maybe it was because I was 20 years old and only going to Canada to visit the bars). I'm older now but my experiences were from 2002. So maybe they have relaxed since then but they still are not as lax as they were before 9/11... when I could use a copy of a birth certificate.

      --
      [insert lame joke here]
    4. Re:Detroit/Windsor border by xander2032 · · Score: 1

      I've never had any problems using my Michigan drivers license and a certfied copy of my birth certificate at the bridge.

      Maybe they don't like you? lol

      Now I have been searched a couple times, but then they do search cars randomly.

      One time I crossed without my birth certificate, because I hadn't planned on crossing. One of my friends in Windsor wanted me to pop by for something, so I just went there after work. When I came back, the woman seemed understanding, although she did tell me to make sure I bring it next time. lol

      A couple times (post 9/11) they haven't even asked for my documents. They just asked the normal questions and sent me on my way.

  95. Wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We let Canadians in the US?

  96. Should be just the opposite by argoff · · Score: 1

    We should respect the right of anybody and any commodity to come and go to the USA as they please unless they are an obvious immenent threat.

  97. But the point is by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    All those people that threatened to move to Canada last November... I don't *want* them to come back!

    1. Re:But the point is by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, they were all talk, and many haven't left.

      I mean, Alec Baldwin promised to GTFO in 2000.

  98. Canadians one up on us! by gone.fishing · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Last summer we crossed in to Canada from the U.S. and back again at the Grand Portage MN crossing. Getting into Canada and back into the U.S. was a "piece of cake." The Canadian authority was a young man - maybe 21 or 22 if he was looking young for his age. He simply asked a series of questions (a couple of which were unexpected and I assume were part of the security screening process) and welcomed us to Canada and let us go.

    What was interesting about that crossing was what any geek is likely to notice. As you approach the station there are cameras and lights - I'm sure that they use some recognition software and run you license plate before you ever even get close to the guard shack. Then as you pick your lane there are these posts that have a couple of convenient slots that I'm sure are also hiding cameras. The driver and the undersides of the vehicle are photographed as you slowly approach the shack.

    On the return trip, the US Customs agent steps out of the shack, writes down your license plate and requests ID from you. He talks to you briefly asking a few simple questions. Didn't take more than a few seconds. But it was all manual! Clearly, at this crossing at least, the Canadians have out-spent us and out-classed us security-wise.

    1. Re:Canadians one up on us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahah! You got it backwards. Canadians are mostly concerned with what you bring into Canada from US: no weapons, no major items without paying taxes. They have no sophisticated equipment to check you up because they have no need: the best way to stay secure is to make no enemies. Americans on the other hand, have many enemies they'd rather not get into their coutnry. They have lots of sophisticated equipment to check you out, but they still go through the manual song and dance just to make a show and scare off potential terr'rists.

    2. Re:Canadians one up on us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      questions (a couple of which were unexpected and I assume were part of the security screening process)

      Yes, our customs guys are required to know your wife's breast size, and may also be required to take photos of them. Many people are indeed, like you, quite surprised by this.

  99. Really? by isotope23 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can't see the headlights bearing down on you eh?

    Look at this

    The juicy bit :

    "McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, airports, bus stations, train stations, federal buildings, telephone companies, Internet hubs and any other "critical infrastructure" facility deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Secretary Tom Ridge would appear to be authorized to issue new federal IDs--with biometric identifiers--that Americans could be required to show at checkpoints. "

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
    1. Re:Really? by Nexx · · Score: 1

      Hahahahahaha I'd love to see them trying to screen the millions that ride NYC subways every day.

    2. Re:Really? by n-baxley · · Score: 1

      look at this.

      There's no mention of physical checkpoints for rail and bus stations. There is a mention of checking names against a database for international flights, which the pretty much are doing now. There's also a call for increased screening of baggage on such flights for explosives and the like. Maybe you should try getting involved in your governmental process for yourself and not just relying on "journalists" like McCullagh. Read a bill sometime, dig a little deeper and don't just accept the story given to you by anyone. Everyone adds some spin, one direction or the other.

  100. Lame by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    According to President Bush, Arizona DOES have a border with Canada.

    That's not what he said. Rather, it's what you got out of reading a transcript of a speech he gave. Arizona is most definitely affected by our porous national borders and by any policies involved in managing those borders.

    1. Re:Lame by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      Bush distorts Kerry for rhetorical purposes. So Dachannien is just playing by Republican Rules. If you don't like it, too bad.

    2. Re:Lame by mzwaterski · · Score: 1
      Nice argument. I'll come back with, if Bush jumped off a bridge would you?

      Distorting comments is distorting comments. Dachannien's comment wasn't suddenly correct because Bush distorted Kerry's comments at some point. If you don't like that...too bad!

    3. Re:Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll come back with, if Bush jumped off a bridge would you?

      No, I'd laugh. But if Bush pushed a Democrat off a bridge, I'd push a Republican, sure.

    4. Re:Lame by mzwaterski · · Score: 1

      I hope that you will enjoy your time in juvile hall if that happens.

    5. Re:Lame by rho · · Score: 1

      Kerry did a fine job of distorting himself, without Republican prompting. It's opponents like Kerry that make Karl Rove look like a genius when all he really had to do was make sure GWB didn't get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
  101. What's the big deal by katorga · · Score: 1

    I already use my passport as ID when traveling within my own country. Its easier to keep up with and produce compared to digging my wallet out and presenting my DL.

    1. Re:What's the big deal by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you show ID. If it's to prove your age, whatnot, that's one thing. However, unlike many countries, I don't believe the US has any legal requirement to make you carry an ID.

      That's not to say that a lot of people wouldn't like to change that, but I'm very wary of even having ID on me in the US.

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  102. Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    starting in 2007, most Canadians will require a passport to cross into the United States and by 2008 Americans who crossed freely into Canada will be unable to return to the United States without a passport.

    So during 2007, when any given person is trying to cross from Canada into the USA, how will they decide who needs to show their passport and who doesn't? You can't tell whether somebody is from Canada or the USA just by looking at them. What are they gonna do - check your passport to decide whether or not they need to check your passport?

  103. then passports should be free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If passports become mandatory to re-enter the country, as a citizen you should not have to pay for them. Unlike a drivers license or other forms of I.D. entering the country isn't optional. There should be no state affixed burden to the act of going home.

    1. Re:then passports should be free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, leaving the country is optional, which means that returning is optional--you could have chosen not to leave.

  104. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by fm6 · · Score: 1

    Just because you usually get waved through, doesn't mean there aren't rules. They don't have time to check everybody's ID, but you're supposed to have it, and there always a chance you'll get caught in a spot check if you don't.

  105. Just goes to show you by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 0

    Notice how the parent was modded flamebait, while the grandparent was modded insightful. Now that's /. objectivity at work.

  106. FYI by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

    Your ability to blind people with nakedness has nothing to do with your whiteness.

  107. Darn Microsoft! by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    They got to the US government. Do I have to sign up for hotmail too?

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  108. Thank God for This! by Twench · · Score: 1

    Because we can't have Alan Thicke coming over here whenever he wants!

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't
  109. A Question of Ownership... by Univac_1004 · · Score: 1
    Do we own ourselves and our government

    ||

    Does our government own itself and us?

    *************

    Does anybody else remember when Russia/USSR was called "The bigest jail on the planet"?

  110. Welcome to the world. by aepervius · · Score: 1

    The rest of the world is getting the same treatment, to enter, let us say, the US for example. So how does it feel ? Last 23rd november there was a change in rule for EU country pass. Not machine-readable passport are required to get a Visa. Mind you those are VALID passport, only they do not have a codebar (for example some EU countires pass). I came in Texas 3 days after the new rule was passed. Naturally I had asked what the rule was 1 week before at the embassy and nobdoy TOLD ME THEY WERE CHANGING THE FREAKING RULE. Result : at the airport I got stuck there for 4+ freaking hours while they were asking me question the same over and over and over. And you are NOT ALLOWED to call your friends to tell 'em you are late. Actually you are not even allowed to use a cell phone at all. And that only because they cannot automatically read the pass and a guy has to enter the data with a keyboard. Haha. I have only 1 wish, that all those "nice" custom agent travel somewhere and get the same "nice" treatment. Just out of spite I also wish EU would introduce fingerprinting and mug shot for all US traveler incoming. I am freaking tired of the hassly in the US each time I have to go there, and it doesn't even increase security a bit, especially taking out my freaking shoe and my belt. Frankly it is a shame I am forced to do buissness there, I would rather make buissness in a more "open" country like UK. But the client wish to go to the US. A Pity the country is nice but getting in and out is becoming as bad as getting in as in East german republic 20 years ago... And I am talking out of experience here.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Welcome to the world. by MKalus · · Score: 1

      Yeah I remember trying to get into the GDR. It took forever, the longest was around 5 hours, they took the car completly apart and confiscated some material they didn't think we should be allowed to 'bring in'.

      But if you think getting INTO the US is tough, try getting OUT, last time I flew out of Dallas it took forever to go through all the security checks, check in in in Toronto was easy in comparision.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    2. Re:Welcome to the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just out of spite I also wish EU would introduce fingerprinting and mug shot for all US traveler incoming. I am freaking tired of the hassly in the US each time I have to go there, and it doesn't even increase security a bit, especially taking out my freaking shoe and my belt. Frankly it is a shame I am forced to do buissness there, I would rather make buissness in a more "open" country like UK.

      Personally I love what Brazil did. Start photographing Americans and doing it in a "we are only doing this to slow you down and piss you off" sort of way. I especially liked it when the American pilot freaked out and was arrested. Now if only other countries (like mine) had the gonads...

  111. Frankly the US has nothing to offer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Canadian I have no interest whatsoever in visiting the US. There is simply nothing there of any interest to me. I'd rather spend my time and money travelling within Canada and meeting my friends and neighbors anyway.

    I'd even rather visit any other country than the US mostly because we already see so much of the US in the commercial media.

    In fact I'd urge any Canadian reading this to boycott the US for tourist and leisure travel and to spend those tourist dollars seeing our own great country. Even better to travel to the four corners of the globe taking our Canadian flag with us to not only meet and learn about people from other cultures but to let them get to know Canadians better so they understand that, while Canada shares a border and a continent with the US that we are distinctly different than Americans. So often I see Canada and the US lumped together in the contemporary media as simply "North America" and I feel frustrated and embarassed to no end about this.

  112. Canadian Immigration by Skjellifetti · · Score: 0, Troll

    My brother (a USian) was hassled 4 or 5 years ago by Canadian Immigration after a flight from California for having only a Calif drivers license and not having a passport. He told them that if they wouldn't let him in, he wouldn't be able to buy the $2 million worth of high tech test equipment from the Canadian firm that he was on his way to visit. They backed down fast.

    These new requirements won't last. Canada and the US are each others biggest trading partners and there is too much at stake to let passports get in the way. There are over 100 million border crossings each year between the US and Canada. 15 million vehicles cross every year between Windsor and Detroit. Every time the President has asked Congress to allocate funds or require more security between the US and Canada, Congress has ignored him due to the large number of Congressmen whose districts would be hurt by such efforts (think WI, MN, MI, OH, PA, NY on trade or drive I-75 and check out all the cars from Ontario headed to FL - thats a lot of votes from both parties).

  113. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a good security system to implement on my Linux box.

    Prompt: Do you belong here?
    Hax0r: Yes
    root@mybox>

    Now if we could only implement the evil bit in people we wouldn't need all of this silly security.

  114. Not Strange.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's an interesting knee-jerk reaction that is completely disconnected from reality. The US resembles the old USSR only in that there are two letters in common.

    Now, somehow somebody thought that you were insightful instead of overreacting - I guess that's their opinion, but mine is that you don't know what you're talking about. Talk to somebody who made it out of the Soviet Union, before the breakup, to the west if you need some insight into the differences between communism and a democratic republic. As much as you'd like to think that there is some huge government crackdown on civil liberties in the US, it has about the same relationship to the USSR as a bazooka to a water pistol.

  115. War on Tourism by ThetaPi · · Score: 1

    As a third teir member of the 175th Holy Church of Tour, I declare that we are at war with you as well.

    We shall smite the infidels that defile the name of Holy Tour. Enter into our houses and you will be smitten by Tour and you will never wish to leave.

    Long Live Tour!

    --
    "When God kisses Satan and the Incarnations applaud." "Death is dead. Long live Death!"
  116. Whatever by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...and by 2008 Americans who crossed freely into Canada will be unable to return to the United States without a passport

    This is CBC fear mongering, this is ridiculous. So long as you can prove citizenship (have ID, birth certificate, voter registration card, etc), they can't deny you entry into your own country.

    As for Canadians, even though it wasnt always required, it's always been wise to take a passport to the US, and have it stamped at the border.

    For instance: if you get in a fender bender in the states, and can't prove to your insurance co when you arrived there, and when you left, you may find that they simply walk away from you, because you can't prove that you (the insured driver) were in the states when the accident occurred.

    Or, if you run afoul of the law, you can prove to some a-hole cop that, indeed, you haven't been in the country more than a month (which requires something more than the defacto "vacation" visa waiver).

    US Immigration law assumes your guilty until you prove yourself innocent. I'm a Canadian living in the US with a Green Card, and went through all their bullshit marraige fraud act stuff (in the US, every marraige to a non-US citizen is fraudulent until you prove otherwise).

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for Canadians, even though it wasnt always required, it's always been wise to take a passport to the US, and have it stamped at the border.

      Eh?? Before 9/11 it was wise to not show your passport when entering US. It was enough to show a birth certificate or a citizenship card, and a passport made the border guard suspicious that you planned to stay in the US longer than just for a visit, e.g. to get a Green Card.

      US Immigration law assumes your guilty until you prove yourself innocent. I'm a Canadian living in the US with a Green Card, and went through all their bullshit marraige fraud act stuff (in the US, every marraige to a non-US citizen is fraudulent until you prove otherwise).

      You're talking about something totally different. You're talking about immigrating to another country. The same thing goes in every country in the world, yes, even in Canada: you must prove your case to the government and not vice-versa. Visiting a country is a totally different thing. Most Western countries let you enter as a tourist with little fuss.

    2. Re:Whatever by rynthetyn · · Score: 1


      "US Immigration law assumes your guilty until you prove yourself innocent. I'm a Canadian living in the US with a Green Card, and went through all their bullshit marraige fraud act stuff (in the US, every marraige to a non-US citizen is fraudulent until you prove otherwise)."

      You know why that is? Because there's a big market for people willing to marry for Green Card purposes. Apparently the going rate is $10,000. They wouldn't scrutinize marriages to non-citizens so much if you didn't have such a big underground marriage market.

      --
      Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
  117. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

    Just don't cross the border as a US citezen from Texas with a Canadian. The border agents can possibly understand why people from that far apart would be friends, and will just about tear apart the car (or at least move mats, inspect hoses in the engine compartment, etc.). I was using a passport, and I think that made it worse.

  118. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by SB5 · · Score: 1

    I went to Canada about 5 months ago, they checked IDs, on the way over and the way back.

    --
    If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
    it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
  119. Tinfoil Hat Time by OS24Ever · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's still the longest undefended border in the world last I checked, and it's not like we put a big ol' fence up to keep them out or something.

    I guess for me I'm thinking 'about time' vs. 'oh my god I'm violated'. I've had the honor of going to Canada twice now and I took my passport with me both times. I would take my passport anytime I leave the country, and Canada is one of those times.

    I think of it being the opposite? Not that Canada is any harder/easier to forge papers in but what if Ahab the Arab is in Canada and actually goes through a border checkpoint instead of walking across a frozen river in the winter. Making them have to forge a few more papers shouldn't be that hard.

    They've lost some 'favored nation' type status because of our history together, big deal. We make every other country use a passport to get in and that's not stopped the tourists, hell even getting them killed in florida doesn't stop em.

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    1. Re:Tinfoil Hat Time by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      Making them have to forge a few more papers shouldn't be that hard.

      What's this forge BS? Every foreign national suspected of having been involved in a terrorist incident in the US ever has entered with their own legit passport. This includes the WTC bombers (from the first attack) as well as the hijackers.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    2. Re:Tinfoil Hat Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still the longest undefended border in the world last I checked,

      Whoop-dee-fuckin-doo. Most borders between Western European countries are undefended, with simple checks at border crossings just like the Canadian-US border. Just because their borders are not physically longer doesn't make them less significant. And the borders of the Benelux countries, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxemburg have been much more open for decades, as in their are no regular border checks even at major points of crossings.

      If anything, the amount of checking at the Canadian-US border has become worse than in pre-EU Western Europe. Stick your head in the sand all you want, USA is becoming less free while the rest of the world is becoming more so.

    3. Re:Tinfoil Hat Time by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I remember going to France, travelling from there (as a canadian citizen) into Switzerland, Italy and Monaco all without the need for my passport to be shown.

      Often the border gate post was uninhabited and we simply drove through.

      Although the US-Canada border is huge, I believe it is now undefended mostly because of our shared history and values where we are connected (northern states vis-a-vis Canada) and the sheer cost of putting up a fence that long.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    4. Re:Tinfoil Hat Time by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

      Oh I didn't mean that the undefended border is a bad thing at all, just that your government as well as ours should at least make an effort to identify people that come and go.

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  120. Leeloo and Corbin Dallas had the right idea. by robyannetta · · Score: 1

    "MultiPass!"

    --
    - Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
  121. Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    To think, we Americans used to scoff at the idea of having a passport required to travel internally, like the Soviet Union used to require its citizens to have. (And which Russia still has).

    Now, it's being justified by the building of the interstate highway system. In the US.

    Internal passports are generally considered a mark of a tyranny.

    Kto kogo, tovarish w9ofa?

    1. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by w9ofa · · Score: 1

      Look, I'm all for freedom and liberty, but that does not mean that people should be able to travel freely and anonymously using my tax dollars.

      I'm not advocating for the Stalinization of American, I'm merely trying to point out the potential usefulness of random traffic stops as a law enforcement tool.

      If there was a serial killer who was caught because he was pulled over for an ID check in your neighbourhood, would you curse the police for robbing his anonymity?

    2. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Look, I'm all for freedom and liberty, but that does not mean that people should be able to travel freely and anonymously using my tax dollars."

      Why? It has always been a right up till now....worked pretty good so far. And there's been serial killers and other dangerous person's since the dawn of time.

      Random checks is stopping for unreasonable search and seizure...if they don't have a valid suspicion to stop you...they should not be able to. What's next.....presumed guilty until proven innocent? Randmon stops is JUST that in a lessor form.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by BeBoxer · · Score: 1

      Look, I'm all for freedom and liberty

      No, actually you aren't.

      I'm not advocating for the Stalinization of American,

      Yes, actually you are. You are one of these people who says you are free, unless you want to work or even leave your house. Then of course everyone has to submit to the will of the state because taxes are involved. And never do you seem to realize that if people have to give up their rights just to work or travel then they aren't free at all! Dumb shits like you are the ones who will be the death of America. Or at least a free America. If you are so willing to submit to the state, can I suggest visiting China or North Korea . Don't bother coming back. We won't miss you. I promise.

    4. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by w9ofa · · Score: 1

      What's next.....presumed guilty until proven innocent? Randmon stops is JUST that in a lessor form.

      I think that is a bit alarmist. I'm not advocating that ID checks be put on every street. I'm just saying that they might occasionally catch criminals, especially in suspicious areas (IE, 100 miles from the border). The cost to the public of a few extra minutes at an ID check is well worth the potential benefit of taking wanted criminals off the streets.

      "Why? It has always been a right up till now....worked pretty good so far.

      The Why? part is because there is a potential payoff to having id checks in place - you have to admit that at least a few criminals who are wanted have been caught by them.

      The rest of your statement is false, do some checking into the Supreme Court rulings in this matter. They have ruled that is not "unreasonable search" to randomly ID people.

      You can assert that you have this right. That does not make it true.

    5. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, random traffic are certain to affect a lot of people who are totally innocent of any crime.

      I wonder how, exactly, an ID check could catch a serial killer, btw.

      Russia has internal passports, and terrorists seem able to operate there just fine.

      Internal passports used to be something that was done in Stalin's Russia (and before that, the Tsar's) and apartheid South Africa. (In the Tsar's Russia, btw, internal passports utterly failed to stop terrorism: one Tsar was killed by terorists, and one head of the Okhrana, the Tsarist Secret Police, was done in by a cell that included an Okhrana spy.)

      We Americans have degenerated to the point where we are willing to accept a tool of tyranny in the name of (depending on which excuse is being used) a) fighting terror! of b)fighting crime.

      This despite the fact that the evidence is that this intrusion into personal liberties gains us little in the way of crime prevention or does much to halt terrorists.

    6. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by w9ofa · · Score: 1


      And never do you seem to realize that if people have to give up their rights just to work or travel then they aren't free at all! Dumb shits like you are the ones who will be the death of America.


      I thought America was based on submission to the rule of law, in the hopes that the Courts, who are either elected or appointed by elected officals, could provide due process.

      You seem to be advocating the kind of freedom to do whatever the hell you want whenever you want to do it. In China and North Korea, the State already has this "freedom". The people do not. In America, we try to reach a reasonable compromise. Advocating anarchy in the face of reasonable restrictions to freeom in the interest of all involved is not very reasonable.

      Yes, the process sucks and is imperfect. I thought that was what free society is really all about - "I'm willing to give up some freedoms so everyone can be reasonablely free"

    7. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by scotch · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. Has a serial killer ever been captured by random ID check (these happen already in many states)? Doubtful. On the other hand, have millions of innocent people been hasshled by random ID checks? Definitely.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    8. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      So why is it that in the last 20 years, there was this sudden need to demand papers and have all kinds of formerly police-state-only tactics?

      SURE you can justify them, sensibly.. but it all adds up to America changing, and straying from it's roots.

      The rule of law is important, but is being identified every time you travel that important? Does it prevent criminals from committing crime?

    9. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's this little thing called the base rate fallacy you might want to look into.

    10. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by BeBoxer · · Score: 1

      reasonable restrictions to freeom in the interest of all involved

      Wow. You should write propaganda. It comes naturally to you. I'll let you in on a secret. Every government, no matter how totalitarian, claims it offers a free society. And they all claim that their restrictions on freedom are "reasonable". But just because they say it does not make it true.

      When you advocate that Americans should not expect to excercise their 4th amendment rights because they are using a road paid for by taxes, you are advocating totalitarianism. Because if something as absolutely necessary to daily existance (such as leaving your property) involves giving up your rights, then your rights don't exist at all. You can pretend that I'm advocating "anarchy". But I'm not.

    11. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And never do you seem to realize that if people have to give up their rights just to work or travel then they aren't free at all!

      Do you have a right to travel anonymously? Serious question - on what do you base your claim that this alleged right exists?

    12. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by ocelotbob · · Score: 1
      I will say this simply, so your little pea brain will understand. Get the fuck out of my country. I don't fucking want random id checks. I want to live innocently until proven guilty. I would rather live with a serial killer or two than with "papers please".

      Give me liberty, or give me death, you unamerican pig.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    13. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are MY tax dollars too, asshole, along with EVERY OTHER CITIZEN.

      And if you want it squandered on making this country more of a living hell then GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY!

    14. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a right to travel anonymously? Serious question - on what do you base your claim that this alleged right exists?

      The coutnry was based on the foundation that anything that IS NOT EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN is ALLOWED. This includes anonymous travel among an infinate ammount of other things.

      If you don't want to embrace freedom then GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY!

    15. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "The rest of your statement is false, do some checking into the Supreme Court rulings in this matter. They have ruled that is not "unreasonable search" to randomly ID people."

      Since when is it mandatory to carry an ID around? Yes, if you're driving, you need a license, but, this statement you made, seems to indicate that we all HAVE to have ID if they start randomly ID'ing us?

      And if random checks are good and potentially catching a criminal, why stop there? Lets make it mandatory for all US citizens, to give a permanent DNA sample at birth...to keep in a huge database, just in case....

      Hey, it might be good to prevent crime, if we implant some sort of RFID type tracker device in everyone...that way, we can monitor your actions and location 24/7...that surely would prevent lots of crime,

      Sure, this is taking it to a ridiculous end....but, technology grows, and if you give the govt. power, they will use and abuse it. Maybe not now..but, the next administration just might...and then, they might have the technology to do this.

      I just don't see the govt. having this right....they're too big as it is now, and have way more power than the founders envisioned the govt, particularly the feds, having...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    16. Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades! by w9ofa · · Score: 1

      I wasn't using hard numbers, but my argument was not based on fallacy. Here's my argument in logical declarations.

      1.) Some criminals have been taken off the streets with ID checks. (Fairly indisputable. Do research if you don't believe me)

      2.) ID checks are a minor inconvienience for many people. (You might disagree here)

      3.) Engineering trade-offs are a valid and just means of governance (I'm merely asserting that)

      4.) The trade-off of a minor inconvience for many people is worth the apprehenion of a few criminals.

      I'm not making any attribution errors. I'm fully aware that I'm not quoting any specific statistics, because I do not feel they are relevant. You might disagree with my conclusion, but that's because you might dispute the fact that the ID check is a minor inconvience.

  122. Frankly, by isotope23 · · Score: 1

    No I don't think you should require a passport to go anywhere. Can you tell me why we SHOULD be required to do so?

    The 9/11 terrorists had valid passports, so I'd say they don't work for fighting terrorism.
    What is wrong with being able to freely travel without government permission?

    It is just another pointless piece of red tape to give government officials something to do.

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  123. Also on the CBC: Auditor finds Cdn security weak by spanielrage · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How fitting. It seems that our passport office is lax with security. How will this affect the US policy?

    Full article: Auditor says Canada's security systems still too weak

  124. Do children need passports? by ColourlessGreenIdeas · · Score: 1

    In the UK (at least a few years ago when I was a kid), parents could get their children recorded in their passport, so the children didn't need their own unless they were travelling on their own. I think this only worked for some countries, but I'm reasonably sure I crossed the iron curtain without having my own passport, so I'm not sure where it didn't work for. Do the same rules apply in the US/Canada? (ISTR the UK was planning to abolish this scheme, presumably to cut down on underage terrorism, but I think they noticed that the passport office wouldn't be able to cope with the extra work, so gave up)

    --
    In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
    1. Re:Do children need passports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Canada children are now required to have their own passports (They used to be able to be included on a parent's). My son had a passport when he was 4 months old.

    2. Re:Do children need passports? by Dougy · · Score: 1

      IIRC A few years ago the system was changed so that if you were applying for a new UK passport you couldn't have your children recorded on it

  125. Actually, i just spent a month in Europe by bmajik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It was especially telling when i spent time in former east germany, and especially east berlin.

    After seeing first hand the memorial to the berlin wall, and the destruction all across east germany (like how none of it was rebuilt during the pre-unification years), i vowed that the next time i heard some fucking _IDIOT_ saying something positive about communisim/socialism, or trying to compare whats happening in the US to what transpired in eastern europe and the soviet union, id be sure and make my token attempt to set them straight.

    You sir, are seriously lacking perspective.

    My wife and i flew from the US to the EU and back and no cavities were searched. We brought back food items and the customs people were very pleasant and allowed our stuff with no problems. The metal detectors detected metal on my body i didn't realize existed (i.e. in my shoes).

    Having crossed the border between canada and the US several times via car, i've always been alarmed at how lax the security was - even though the trunk of my car was searched on a few occasions (i tend to seem suspicious, i guess), i never felt it was unreasonable for the border patrol to try and ascertain if i had a trunk full of bodies or guns or something.

    I am all for extremely strong border protections. All are welcome in the US, so long as they play by the rules, which are set and enforced by the sole discretion of the US. I wish we were putting our troops on the mexican border instead of some of the other places they're currently deployed, but thats political suicide (behaving reasonably often is)

    Controlling who enters and exits the US is a good idea. You can be sure that what the US is doing - trying to do a marginal job at asking "so, who are you?" is a damn sight less invasive than shooting women in the back, which is how things were handled in some of the regimes you're comparing the US to.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    1. Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe by mizhi · · Score: 1
      It was especially telling when i spent time in former east germany, and especially east berlin. After seeing first hand the memorial to the berlin wall, and the destruction all across east germany (like how none of it was rebuilt during the pre-unification years), i vowed that the next time i heard some fucking _IDIOT_ saying something positive about communisim/socialism, or trying to compare whats happening in the US to what transpired in eastern europe and the soviet union, id be sure and make my token attempt to set them straight.
      In the summer of 1990, just after the wall fell and Czechoslovakia still existed, my dad took my family to Prague. The city, at one point, had been beautiful, but decades of communism had really taken its toll on both the city and the people. After that first-hand impression, I've always wondered what the hell is going through a person's mind when they speak warmly about communism. It simply baffles me. I wonder how far they've come in the past 15 years without the TRUE oppression that was the USSR keeping them down.
      --
      Humorless sig goes here.
    2. Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Informative
      After seeing first hand the memorial to the berlin wall, and the destruction all across east germany (like how none of it was rebuilt during the pre-unification years), i vowed that the next time i heard some fucking _IDIOT_ saying something positive about communisim/socialism, or trying to compare whats happening in the US to what transpired in eastern europe and the soviet union, id be sure and make my token attempt to set them straight.

      I'll happily say something positive about socialism. I lived in a socialist state for a year. Health care was excellent and available to all. The rail system and mass transit were heavily subsidized by the state; they boasted the fastest trains in the world, and the mass transit was so good that I only rode in a car a handful of times while there. Public space was safe and surprisingly clean for the size of the city I lived in; you could walk through acres of parks free of charge and free of fear for your personal safety. The workweek was heavily regulated by the government; as a result, I actually got a chance to discover what it was like to actually enjoy life. Taxes were astronomically high, but the funny thing was that you didn't really mind because life was good--you could lead an immensely satisfying and fulfilling life without having to burn through mounds of money. There were problems--there always are--but on balance, they had a much better grasp of what it means to live a good life as part of a society than the typical American does.

      This country was, of course, France--a socialist state through and through.

      Don't make the mistake of assuming that socialism equates to Soviet-style autocracy. Socialism can and does work, when joined with the principles of a free people and the democratic process.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    3. Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      they had a much better grasp of what it means to live a good life as part of a society than the typical American does.

      And here, perhaps, is the critical difference; the socialist society you describe may indeed provide a better life for the people who think as you describe. But you presuppose that there is a right and correct vision of "the good life," and that it is the state's role to provide it. I argue that the overarching premise of the United States is that no presuppositions about what constitutes the "good life" will be made by the state; so long as they respect the integrity of others, individuals will be left alone to determine this (or not, as the case may be) for themselves. Better in some ways, worse in others. I like it, personally. You may not. But see! Under my philosophy, I don't have to believe that you are wrong.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    4. Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      The critical differece is that in reality, the only thing the US offers is slighty more money, at the expence of general social welfare.

      You see, "the good life" really is pretty much the same for all people. And a state like France doesn't really impose it's "correct vision" anymore than the US does.

    5. Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I'm sure requiring a tiny booklet IMPOSSIBLE to forge will fix things right up. No need to search your trunk for bodies or guns because you have a tiny unforgable booklet. All Safe, Move Along.

    6. Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, looks like France is a great place to be.

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/005/446loxwa.asp?pg=1

      The interesting part is this:

      On March 8, tens of thousands of high school students marched through central Paris to protest education reforms announced by the government. Repeatedly, peaceful demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab youths--about 1,000 in all, according to police estimates. The eyewitness accounts of victims, teachers, and most interestingly the attackers themselves gathered by the left-wing daily Le Monde confirm the motivation: racism.

      Some of the attackers openly expressed their hatred of "little French people." One 18-year-old named Heikel, a dual citizen of France and Tunisia, was proud of his actions. He explained that he had joined in just to "beat people up," especially "little Frenchmen who look like victims." He added with a satisfied smile that he had "a pleasant memory" of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground.

      Another attacker explained the violence by saying that "little whites" don't know how to fight and "are afraid because they are cowards." Rachid, an Arab attacker, added that even an Arab can be considered a "little white" if he "has a French mindset." The general sentiment was a desire
      to "take revenge on whites."

      Sometimes petty theft appeared to be the initial motivation. One or two bullies would approach a student and ask for money or a cell phone. Even if the victim complied right away, they would start beating him or her. A striking account was provided by Luc Colpart, a history and geography teacher and member of the far-left union SUD. Colpart said the scenes of violence were so disturbing that he could not sleep for days. He saw students being beaten or pulled by the hair. He stressed that assailants who stole cell phones smashed them in front of their victims: "It was a game. Hatred and fun."


      Kind of like the Seattle of Europe. The cops just stand around and watch.

    7. Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1
      Well gosh, Sparky, you sure showed me! Heck, I wasn't even aware of the recent acceleration of decades-old tensions between France and her rapidly expanding population of immigrants from the DOM-TOM and former colonies like Algeria and Tunisia! Why, I didn't even realize that there were racists, bigots, criminals and poor people there, either! Whoa! This just turns my entire worldview around three hundred and sixty degrees! I'm stunned! I suppose had this coming, though, as I spent every waking second of my time in France sipping fine wines and munching hors d'oeuvres at grand museum unveilings amidst the rich and elite. Sheesh, what a rube I am!

      And here I thought that France was a pretty great place--and you've managed to completely repudiate that atrociously fallacious belief with a single news clipping! Amazing! Astounding!

      I...I just don't know what to believe anymore. Guide me, Anonymous Coward, guide me through this dark and cruel world!

      *faint*

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    8. Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, I wasn't even aware of the recent acceleration of decades-old tensions between France and her rapidly expanding population of immigrants from the DOM-TOM and former colonies like Algeria and Tunisia! Why, I didn't even realize that there were racists, bigots, criminals and poor people there, either! Whoa! This just turns my entire worldview around three hundred and sixty degrees! I'm stunned! I suppose had this coming, though, as I spent every waking second of my time in France sipping fine wines and munching hors d'oeuvres at grand museum unveilings amidst the rich and elite.

      Well that is one approach to experiencing the wonders of France. It worked out pretty well for a while for an Austrian tourist, daughter of Empress Maria Theresa, who could have written that very statement.

      And then the erosion of the unsustainable economic underpinnings of the minutely regulated/non-market oriented French economic system exacerbated preexisting social tensions to the point that something unpleasant happened to her and her family and her friends.

      But of course, nothing like that could ever happen again. After all, 18th Century France was burdened with massive economic inefficiencies, multiple layers of powerful but economically counterproductive rent seekers and enormous numbers of corrupt politicians and public officials. Meanwhile its cities were filled with millions of violent individuals who felt no connection to the people who were running everything.

      The situation in the socialist paradise of France today is completely different.

    9. Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe by phayes · · Score: 1

      So, by your yardstick, Switzerland which has cleaner parks, great transportation & a higher standard of living than France should be a socialist paradise on earth, n'est pas? As it isn't, your equating Socialism with what make France a nice place to live is illogical. I could just as easily equate dogshit all over the sidewalks as deriving from socialism.

      Comparing democratic France to Communist East Germany is extremely disingenous & at best badly informed. As a dual national who grew up in the states & then who has lived in France since the 80's allow me to correct you some of your misconceptions on living in Paris (because clearly you were in Paris & not in the country or any of the myriad other cities where public transport is less available).

      Health care appears inexpensivce in France for three reasons:
      - Doctors are not subject to malpractice suits & thus the insurance premiums here the way they are in the states (Positive side: health care is less expensive overall. Negative Side: Much of the french medical profession treats their patients like vets do and bad doctors are allowed to continue practicing. My nephew died because of an incompetant ObGyn - multiple condemnations for malpractice, yet he is allowed to continue).
      - Nurses are paid little more than streetsweepers (Positive side: Health care is less expensive overall. Negative Side: There is a growing deficit of nurses in France. 5% of all positions are currently unfilled and given that 20% will be retiring in the next 10 years with few replacements in the pipeline it's not going to be getting better).
      - The French taxpayer foot's 90% or your bill. (Positive side: Health care appears less expensive overall to people in France temporarily. Negative Side: France's social security budget is perennially in deficit and needs to be bailed out every one or two years to the tune of billions of Euros. Live here for more than a year and you'll discover that new taxes (RDS, ISF, etc) come every 2-3 years and that our standard of living diminishes every time).

      The One major advantage I see in France's approach to health that doesn't have a downside is that the government refuses to authorize new medication on the market if they consider it to be overpriced. Thus, the pharmacutical conglomerates are not charging the max that the market can bear.

      The rail system & mass transit are subsidised to the point that people living in the center of our large cities can indeed move around easily, much as I do when I'm in New York, Wash DC, Chicago, etc. The perennial transport strikes by civil servants with guarenteed jobs & an early pension mean you cannot count on them working when you need them. If both your home & jobe are not in the town center, have fun during your 2 hour commutes. I bought a motorcycle & abandoned the metro after loosing a client due to strikes. The number of scooters & motorcycles has more than doubled over the past 10 years because many have done the same as I have.

      Public space in the center of Paris is much like that of WDC: Pleasant & highly policed. European custom has been to push the poor out into the suburbs. Sure, the parks inside Paris are free, but if you're poor you'll have to take a bus then the Metro for over an hour to enjoy them.

      So, you didn't feel threatened in the center of Paris? Spend some time in St Denis Garches or any of the poorer neigborhoods just outside Paris. Just don't show any exterior signes of wealth or be willing to surrender them. Don't try calling for the police: They only come in groups of 20 or more as their mere presence is considered to be an invasion by the criminal elements who respond by throwing bricks from their 6'th floor appartments.

      I'm glad you enjoyed that government mandated 35hr work week. In the IT sector most people actually LOST time off as management's response was very often to abrogate all the previously privately negotiated vacation days (bye bye 5 days off after 5 years). Salaries (but not

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  126. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

    Yeh, they need to start checking so they can catch all the criminals like yourself.

  127. ...Made out of paper (cry me a river) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a new Berlin wall, to discourage cultural contamination.

    Umm...we've already been contaminated by Canda - we have hockey. Besides, it's not a wall - it's a passport!

    Everybody else already has to provide passports. And, let's see, by requiring Americans to have passports to come in, are we protecting ourselves from contamination by...ourselves?

    You didn't think this through very well.

  128. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by conradp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It also helps to be the right skin colour and accent, or at least not the "wrong" ones.

    I get waved through all the time too. My cousin, on the other hand, has gotten his car ripped apart.

    Exactly! Despite all the hand-wringing here, that's what this change is actually all about.

    The formal rules for who can come and go haven't changed, what has changed is just the level of proof that a person has to supply in order to come into the country. Previously if a white, accent-free American went to Canada and upon returning said "I'm a citizen", he or she would be pretty much just let in. But if an arab-looking American with an accent went to Canada and upon returning said "I'm a U.S. citizen", do you think he or she would just waltz in? I doubt it. But do you think America really should let any person who says "I'm a U.S. citizen" waltz into the country with little or no proof?

    This change "levels the field" by setting common, enforceable criteria for entering the country. If you have a valid U.S. passport or a foreign passport with an appropriate visa, you can come in, regardless of race, accent, or appearance. If you don't, well... I guess you'll be spending the afternoon at the U.S. consulate while they check you out more thoroughly.

    P.S. Driver's licenses and birth certificates are essentially "no proof" as the former does not actually indicate citizenship or residency, the latter doesn't have a photo, neither has a standard format, and both are easy to fake.

    --
    "To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
  129. I remember like yesterday by ylikone · · Score: 1

    because it basically was. The security has eased up again in my experience. Where am I going and how long will I stay usually is the most questioning I get... but then again, I'm of European descent and don't look anything like a terrorist. Because you know, you can spot a terrorist by the colour of their skin. (joking, obviously)

    --
    Meh.
  130. Seems Reasonable, but isn't by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This seems perfectly reasonable. If you leave one gaping hole in US border patrol, like the entire northern border, then you may as well not patrol the other borders.

    You do realize that the number of illegal border crossings on the southern border are 20 times larger than any on the northern border, don't you?

    Want to stop illegal crossings? Make the employers go to jail.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  131. Of course it's not by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My mother has had a US driver license for over 30 years. She was not, however, a US citizen for most of this time, she was a resident alien. Driver licenses are just that: licenses to operate a vehicle. They do not indicate citizenship, or even residency status.

    The US lacks a citizen ID card like many nations have, so the only real document that works is a passport.

    1. Re:Of course it's not by Freeform · · Score: 0

      That's all well and fine, but the fact is that the majority of us Americans lack a passport. Would bringing your birth certificate, social security card, and state ID allow you to enter, or would they make you stay in Canada for two weeks while you went through all the bureaucracy to get a passport?

    2. Re:Of course it's not by WaterBreath · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That's all well and fine, but the fact is that the majority of us Americans lack a passport. Well, seeing as the entire purpose of a passport is to pass through ports (or other types of nation-borders), why shouldn't you be required to have one if you're planning on leaving the country?

      The only reason we didn't previously need one for coming from Canada is because it used to be safe to assume people coming through Canada had a good reason to be here....

      Then terrorists started coming in through Canada because it was so easy.

      Long story short: You want to leave the country? Get a passport so we'll know you have a right to come back without further hassle.

      Would bringing your birth certificate, social security card, and state ID allow you to enter, or would they make you stay in Canada for two weeks while you went through all the bureaucracy to get a passport?

      No, it won't be enough anymore. Why? Because state ID's are easy to fake. Especially to someone who isn't necessarily a resident of a given state. How reliable do you think it is for someone at the border to have to check each and every ID to make sure it matches one of the 50 valid formats that we have? Personally, I'd rather have one, reliable, reasonably difficult to counterfeit, piece of evidence that's easy to recognize for what it is and easy to spot if it's fake.

    3. Re:Of course it's not by vicparedes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Then terrorists started coming in through Canada because it was so easy."

      This assumption has more to do with spin doctoring and pointing fingers than actual facts. One glaring fact you've omitted is that the terrorists of 9/11 were granted student and visitor visas by none other than US Immigration. That, my friend, had nothing to do with Canada. Yet somehow the speculation that the terrorists came in through Canada got stuck in people's minds.

    4. Re:Of course it's not by tresstatus · · Score: 1

      Actually, many states now require you to have proof of U.S. citizenship before you can get a license. I moved to Tennessee and had to provide a social security card and a notarized birth certificate before I could even take a test here. They DO offer a certificate for driving, but it is not a valid ID for anything except driving. You don't have to be a citizen to get this.

      --
      stephen
    5. Re:Of course it's not by cluckshot · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It is worse than you say but you get it... (parent post)

      The USA has not done one of the many things required to respond appropriately to the problem of terrorists yet. It doesn't intend to either because the leaders do not think that there is a real threat. Don't believe me? Why are the "Minute Men" on the Az border right now? Because the Bush team refused to do its job at all! Everything to make it a heavy burden for decent people but nothing to solve the problem.

      Don't tell me I am wrong. I just filed a N-400 (Application for Citizenship) for my wife. The Mesquite Texas USBICS office informed us it will be 450 days before they process this. Take a hint if you don't believe what I am saying is so. Its a fact and if you don't like it! Don't shoot the one who reported. Do something to change the conditions .... FIRE every BUSHIE you know as they defend and obstruct every way they can. In a nation supposed to be ruled by the rule of law, the USA has a President who cherry picks laws and ignores laws at his whim. This threatens any rule of law.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    6. Re:Of course it's not by schtum · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's true that the majority of Americans lack a passport, but it's also true that a majority will never leave the country in their lives. Many will proudly tell you they don't need to, because they already live in the greatest place on earth.
      <conspiracy rant>And of course the current administration wants to encourage that attitude. God forbid we're exposed to foreign ideas. And if this passport thing doesn't discourage you, just take a look at current exchange rates.</conspiracy rant>

      To be fair, it is a huge country. You could stay safely within our borders your whole life and still be very well travelled. In reality though, the type of people who brag about never having left the country have probably never left their home state.
    7. Re:Of course it's not by robertjw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How reliable do you think it is for someone at the border to have to check each and every ID...

      I can't believe that checking passports is much better. After thousands a day get through shouldn't be that hard to slip a counterfit one through. Besides that, the 4,000 mile border (longest international border in the world) is probably not going to be that easy to patrol. Any terrorist can take a nice hike and be in Montana in a few hours. Looks to me like this is another excuse by the US government to make our lives more difficult, make a few bucks on issuing a bunch of passports, and push us to a more totalitarian state.

    8. Re:Of course it's not by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's all well and fine, but the fact is that the majority of us Americans lack a passport.

      Umm, I'd say the numbers look a lot different when you look at Americans that actually travel internationally.

      For those leaving the borders, a passport is a reasonable requirement.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    9. Re:Of course it's not by Mars+Ultor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I love it when Slashbots just start spouting off stuff about which thy have absolutely no clue. Where to begin....

      Then terrorists started coming in through Canada because it was so easy.

      Actually according to the head of Interpol, you're full of it and then some. Oh and who's this commie, UN-loving, left wing tree-hugger Nobel guy anyway? Turns out he was "a former law professor at New York University and one-time chief law enforcement officer for the U.S. Treasury Department". He must not have a clue, EH? Of course, another post already mentioned that the 9/11 terrorists had US Immigration visas, but pay no attention to that.

      How reliable do you think it is for someone at the border to have to check each and every ID to make sure it matches one of the 50 valid formats that we have?

      Actually, quite. If you've ever worked as a Customs/Immigration officer (which I have), you would know that border guards have access to a handly little book that gives minute details and colour pictures of every federal, provincial, territorial, and state-issued ID from North America. So it really isn't that hard to spot a fake card in practice (just ask any 18-year old Michiganian trying to come and drink in Canada with a fake ID).

      Oh, I really liked this one too:

      Get a passport so we'll know you have a right to come back without further hassle

      Can't speak about the US here, but in Commie Canada, all citizens have the right to enter the country as they wish(see paragraph 6.1). Let me repeat - it is ILLEGAL for a Canadian citizen to be detained while entering Canada, unless there is an outstanding warrant for their arrest or they are contravening the Customs Act in some manner.

      Your comments leave me to believe you were flamebaiting, but I in case you weren't, I had to take a swing at it.

      --
      "Nokia is not a country, it's the capital of Finland!" -Moderated "Informative". Yeesh.
    10. Re:Of course it's not by Tongo · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's much "spin doctoring" in this case. I don't remember the year, but a border patrol agent stopped a terrorist at the I-5/Rt 99 border crossing in Washington State. He had a trunk full of explosives and was planning on trying to blow up the Space Needle.

      This did have something to do with Canada...

    11. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd bet that China's border with the USSR is longer.

    12. Re:Of course it's not by AJWM · · Score: 4, Funny

      My favorite Canadian Customs/Immigration story:

      At the time I was a Canadian resident ("landed immigrant"), my brother's a Canadian citizen by birth. We were driving back from Ohio, heading to cross at Detroit/Windsor. About half way there I realized I'd left my (British) passport, along with some other papers, at my girlfriends house (where we'd been visiting). I was a little nervous about crossing without it, even though the usual routine when reentering in a vehicle with Ontario plates was just "where do live" and "how long were you gone".

      As it happened, we (me driving) decided to cross through the downtown tunnel, rather than the bridge (I think we just missed the turnoff). Still just a little nervous, we pulled up to the Canadian C&I booth, and I waited for the -- I hoped usual -- questions.

      The agent gives us both a look, leans over, and says "got any guns?"

      "Uh, what? No."

      "Okay, go ahead."

      And away we went.

      This was about 17 years ago, I imagine it's a little different now, even if that is a very busy crossing.

      --
      -- Alastair
    13. Re:Of course it's not by Jboy_24 · · Score: 1

      Then its "Terrorist" not "Terrorists". And the current system of drivers licence checks and border patrols actually stopped him.

      It actually would be interesting to note which terrorists which have struck us soil weren't legal immigrants or citizens?

    14. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, so the existing systems already caught the terrorist who tried to enter via Canada. So would he have been even more caught if he'd had to fake and/or steal a passport, or something? Or is what's bothering you all the terrorist atrocities that are even now being carried out all over the USA by all the terrorists who don't get caught at the Canadian border? (Yes, that's a grand total of NONE.)

      Looks to me like the system works already... so what did you say the justification for this change was again?

    15. Re:Of course it's not by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      At the crossing between Thunder Bay and Duluth I have never, ever, had to show ID or any identification, going either way.

    16. Re:Of course it's not by Tongo · · Score: 1

      As two of you have pointed out, the existing system does work. I wasn't trying to disprove this, in fact I think a new system isn't going to help much as long as our borders are so open (physically). I just wanted to point out that terrorist DO use border crossing from Candada.

    17. Re:Of course it's not by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Actually, wasn't he headed for LAX airport, not the Space Needle?

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    18. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The guy that did get caught was trying to cross, on a ferry, from Victoria BC to Port Angeles WA. And the current system did work... smart border guards figuring that this guy was dodgy... and the fact he produced a Costco Card as his "ID".

      Here is a link to that story...

      http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world /terroristwithin/chapter10.html

      Fact is, the requirement of passports for Canadian and US citizens to enter either country won't make either country more secure. It'll make things easier for the border staff on both sides to do their job, but relying on ID only to sniff out potential terrorists is idiotic. And the potential economic costs will be large... ask some of the border communities how much they rely on cross-border traffic.

      This is more of a PR move to make people think that they are more secure. If a terrorist wants to get into either Canada or the US, there are far better ways of doing so than try to fake a driver's license and a birth certificate to get through. Like applying for a student visa...

    19. Re:Of course it's not by Vombatus · · Score: 1
      the 4,000 mile border (longest international border in the world)

      According to http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_pro files/Coa_cou_036.pdf Australia's coastline is 66,530 km long. Beats your puny 4,000 mile border by a whole lot.

      Not everything is bigger in the USA.

      --
      This sig is intentionally blank
    20. Re:Of course it's not by Deanasc · · Score: 1
      How reliable do you think it is for someone at the border to have to check each and every ID to make sure it matches one of the 50 valid formats that we have?


      I'm guessing it's as hard as it is for a doorman at any big city bar to look in the 50 states ID book. Heck, the book that ABCC in Massachusetts issued even included Canadian provinces.

      --
      I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
    21. Re:Of course it's not by krunk4ever · · Score: 1

      i doubt a drivers license is much different than green card or visa. not all people crossing the border are US Citizens. for those that are residential aliens or have a temporary visa (student/working) would not have a valid U.S. passport. at this time, i don't see much difference in showing your green card or temporary visa from your drivers license.

      All three shows that the person in question has been given access inside the country. i doubt people who are illegal immigrants are granted drivers license.

    22. Re:Of course it's not by BluedemonX · · Score: 1

      RE: I moved to Tennessee and had to provide a social security card and a notarized birth certificate before I could even take a test here.

      Sure, but you know, even people who are in the country on temporary visas, even TNs, are entitled to Social Security cards (in fact, you have to have one to work here, even for a few months), but they're stamped to the effect that they aren't valid without INS authorization (e.g. try to get a job with one, they'll ask for a visa).

      Since most places insist you change your license within 30 days, you technically have to under a three year H1-B deal. So no, you can technically get a driver's licence without being a citizen (looks at his own driver's licence) and hey, that's why it isn't sufficient.

      In 1996 I watched some Canadians being denied reentry to Canada because they didn't realize they needed something other than a driver's licence. Even though they smoked Export A, spoke like Bob McKenzie and had mullets, eh.

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
    23. Re:Of course it's not by DroppedPacket · · Score: 1
      "Can't speak about the US here, but in Commie Canada, all citizens have the right to enter the country as they wish(see paragraph 6.1). Let me repeat - it is ILLEGAL for a Canadian citizen to be detained while entering Canada, unless there is an outstanding warrant for their arrest or they are contravening the Customs Act in some manner."

      OK, I'll bite. How do you know somebody is a Canadian Citizen? Check their insurance card? Trust them to tell you the truth? National ID card? Ask them to say "Out and about from the house?"

      I see the claim, but I see no reference to how you prove citizenship.

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
    24. Re:Of course it's not by The+Milkman · · Score: 0

      Huge fucking monoculture that is.
      Wandering about a large country even with very different regions isn't really comparable to visiting other countries.

    25. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, yeah, we forgot Australia's border with the ocean...

      Let's see, that's 41,340 miles.

      The USA has 88,633 miles of shoreline, so shut it. That's in addition to the 5,525 miles of border with Canada and the 1,933 miles of border with Mexico.

    26. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then terrorists started coming in through Canada because it was so easy.

      You think that's bad. I heard that every single one of the 9/11 bombers entered the United States. Most of them didn't even bother coming through Canada.

      Frankly, I'm all for closing the border but don't expect us to feed, house and clothe your citizens like last time. Maybe if your president drops a few thousand of you in the Atlantic or strands you in the ass end of nowhere (near Lethbridge) you'll start to take the real threat seriously.

    27. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And without a passport, how would we know they are American? A driver's license, or social security card DOES NOT indicate citizenship.

    28. Re:Of course it's not by Coolpup · · Score: 1

      Probably the closest thing the US has to a citizen ID is the Selective Service registration card. IIRC, only us male citizens are to have these cards. Obviously this does no good for female citizens, but us guys can get home nice and easy.

    29. Re:Of course it's not by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then terrorists started coming in through Canada because it was so easy.

      WTF? The 9/11 terrorists were documented and legally in America as Saudi nationals. They weren't here pretending to be "Americans returning home from Canada".

    30. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Border, as in between 2 or more countries. Australia only borders with the Hutt River Province (and you, as an Aussie, probably didn't know about that border).

      --Septic

    31. Re:Of course it's not by whmac33 · · Score: 1

      Well, if your counting coastlines as borders, Canada has a longer coastline too

      202 080km. Minus BC's coast between Alaska and Washington it's still about 180km.

      See http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_pro files/Coa_cou_036.pdf

    32. Re:Of course it's not by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and then there were those guys that were trying to throw a WV Beetle from Golden Gate bridge. Those were Canadians, too, weren't they?

      --
      AccountKiller
    33. Re:Of course it's not by wannasleep · · Score: 1

      actually there are plenty of illegal immigrants with a valid driver's licence. It is regulated by states: California allows it. Jeb Bush in Florida is in favour of it. Why? because illegal immigrants work for a lower wage and drives businesses' bottom line up. And who lobbies? Joe Citizen or Joe Business?

    34. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never realized just how US-centric this forum is until seeing the moderation of so wrong post. The very definition of being not well travelled is having never left your native land. And yes, that includes the good old U S of A. No matter how big and grand you think it is it can never match the diversity of a world and it's diversity which makes one travelled, not mileage. Otherwise cabbies and truck drivers would be the most worldly of all people.

    35. Re:Of course it's not by RollingThunder · · Score: 1

      My general experience of recent years...

      "Place of residence?"
      "How long were you in the US?"
      "What was the purpose of your visit?"
      "Anything to declare?"

      That's accurate as of February, this year.

    36. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then terrorists started coming in through Canada because it was so easy.

      They did? I must have missed that part.

      It'd be easy enough to get someone with a clean background through normal immigration channels, at least on a tourist visa...

    37. Re:Of course it's not by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1
      Yes, but this is fairly recent. My understanding is that proof-of-citizenship requirements have been added to driver's licenses in response to the influx of illegals, mostly from Mexico. The underlying assumption seems to be that because people tend to accept a driver's license as meaning you're here legitimately, they shouldn't be given out to people who are breaking the law with their presence.


      They go back and forth about it in California every once in a while. It's interesting that Tennessee has that requirement in place, I wonder what its history was.


      Personally I can see both sides of the issue -- obviously giving out driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is bad policy if people use those driver's licenses as some sort of proof that you're here legitimately; but as was mentioned further up in the thread, they're not SUPPOSED to mean that you're a citizen, or here legally, or anything else of the sort. All they mean is that you know how to drive a car.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    38. Re:Of course it's not by pnewhook · · Score: 0, Troll

      No terrorists have ever entered the US from Canada! That was completely fabricated!

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    39. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RRRRoll up the rim to win

    40. Re:Of course it's not by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      Yay, a national ID system.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    41. Re:Of course it's not by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      That would be a strange conversation

      Q: Place of Residence?
      A: How long were you in the US

      Q: What was the purpose of your visit?
      A: Anything to declare

      Q: Is that some kind of code-speak?
      A: Doesn't make any sense. ;)

    42. Re:Of course it's not by metalligoth · · Score: 1

      It's true that the majority of Americans lack a passport, but it's also true that a majority will never leave the country in their lives. Many will proudly tell you they don't need to, because they already live in the greatest place on earth.

      Ah, spoken like someone truly not from Michigan. ^_~

      In Detroit, Windsor is part of the Metro area. Going there is as common as going to any other suburb. Moreover, all the 19 and 20 year olds go to Canada to drink legally, as the age of majority in Ontario is 19.

      So if the entire population of Metro Detroit gets a passport (6 million people on both sides of the border) that's a lot of people.

    43. Re:Of course it's not by JeremyALogan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      that sounds a lot like when I went up to Vancouver a few months ago.

      I didn't have a passport and thanks to the US's wonderful mail system I didn't have my birth certificate either (something about paying for priority mail to have it take 2 WEEKS). We decided to go anyways. Worse case scenario I had wasted about 7 hours of my life.

      Anyhow, we get there and they ask where we are going. We answer Vancouver. They ask why. We tell them we're visiting friends. They ask if we have a gun. We (surprised) say no. They tell us to have a nice trip.

      About 3 km up the road I turn to my friend Chris and say "does that mean if we have two gunS we would have rightfully said no?" He laughs and we enjoy Canada.

      Four days later and it's time to go home. We get back to the border and the US Border Guard asks for our proof of citizenship and if we have anything to declare. We answer "two liters of gin" as I hand over a drivers license and social security card and my friend hands over a passport. He doesn't even act like he cares... he fills out a little piece of paper and tells us to take it inside. We follow orders and then I realize I'm being forced through immigration. The guy inside takes my ID and runs what I can only assume was a background check. After that he spends about 4 minutes chastising me.

      Long story short I got back in. I knew they'd let me in eventually... even if it ment waiting till morning when they could call the state and verify that I was, in fact, born here. What scares me is that, if I read it right, that may not be the case in a few years. What am I supposed to do if I get stuck at the border? I can't work in Canada and I can't get home.

    44. Re:Of course it's not by JeremyALogan · · Score: 1

      oh, and FYI... SSI card + state issued photo ID does not equal (!=) proof of citizenship. aparently foreigners can get both.

    45. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Question asked on US->Canada trip: Do you have any guns?

      Question asked on Canada->US trip: Do you have any fruit?

    46. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude they speak French there! What more proof do you need?

    47. Re:Of course it's not by mlg9000 · · Score: 1

      Because it's happened already. Not on 9/11 but in Dec of 99. US customs caught an Al-Queda member at the border who had plans to blow up the Seattle Space needle and more then enough explosives in the trunk of his car to do the job. Later on they found out there were others involved in the plot as well as plans to blow up Disneyland too. All of those 5 or 6 terrorists entered the US through Canada. You also have known terrorists living in your country right now!

      The fact is it's easy to check our airports and docks for illegal entry. The border is much much harder. What kind of sense does it to stop you from landing in the US but you can just fly to Canada were you they are sure to let you in with their pre 9/11 liberal policies, and drive to the US? None.. you need to protect ALL points of entry. (Mexico too)

      On a side note.. I know someone, an American, who owns land up in Canada. In the woods next to his property he's seen Arabs running around in the woods with real guns in what loked like war games. He called the Canadian authorities... nobody has even bothered to come check it out and it's still going on.

    48. Re:Of course it's not by Hammer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's illegal to detain a Canadian wanting to reenter Canada. But if you can't produce sufficient evidence that you are Canadian, then it is not illegal because the border guys can reasonably assume that you are a terrorist (or even American :-) and therefore not entitled to free entry.

    49. Re:Of course it's not by martin100 · · Score: 1
      thats exactly what the border agents told me when i was returning from a road trip to montreal. they looked at my driver's license and said "all you can prove is that you can drive in america, not that you are a citizen."

      however, it appeared they just wanted to make me squirm, because they let me in after i whined a bit. i guess that will change. we probably should all get passports anyways.

    50. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SSI cards and IDs issued to foreigners are marked as such (SSI - valid only with visa, ID - not a citizen).

    51. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus! Now that's plain scary! Did these Ay-rabs have black helicopters flying overhead by any chance? Any dish cloths left lyin' around in them woods? That might clinch it!

    52. Re:Of course it's not by jweage · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you take a closer look, you may notice that the expiration date is not the same as her birthday. Some states use that as a way of indicating non-US citizen.

    53. Re:Of course it's not by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      Well now we know. Moderation on Slashdot is just not right here. I tell the truth about the Bush team and someone doesn't want it said so they mod it down. Why do people like this keep thinking that by suppression of the truth that they do any good. How about moderators like this getting a life! Its the truth Bush and his bunch are rotten to the core and I am not Anti-Republican I am a life long Reagan Republican. I am conservative. They are none of the same.

      How does fact become flamebait? I just asked the questions and pointed out the facts. The Bush team has done everything it could to avoid doing its proper job and to disrupt the demands that they do right. Thats the facts if you disagree. Get a life!

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    54. Re:Of course it's not by winwar · · Score: 1

      "What scares me is that, if I read it right, that may not be the case in a few years. What am I supposed to do if I get stuck at the border? I can't work in Canada and I can't get home."

      Well, I guess you would have to commit an act that would get you deported from Canada to your home country. Or commit an act that would get the US to extradite you :) Simple, really :)

    55. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The little green men they were chasing probably had passports.

    56. Re:Of course it's not by jpostel · · Score: 1

      Many states DO grant illegal aliens drivers licenses. NJ just started asking for additional things like Social Security cards and proof of residency in the last year or so. Previous to that, you could get a drivers license by proving that you are of age, you are who you say you are (proof of identity), and that you live in the state (proof of residency).

      I personally think that drivers licenses should be granted to anyone (including illegal aliens), but a granted bit more conservatively, in that testing should be more stringent. They should also be revoked a bit more liberaly, with reckless driving being a two strike and your out penalty.

      --
      Ummm, Jon, aren't you supposed to be dead...? - Otter(3800)
    57. Re:Of course it's not by RailRide · · Score: 1
      No, it won't be enough anymore. Why? Because state ID's are easy to fake. Especially to someone who isn't necessarily a resident of a given state. How reliable do you think it is for someone at the border to have to check each and every ID to make sure it matches one of the 50 valid formats that we have? Personally, I'd rather have one, reliable, reasonably difficult to counterfeit, piece of evidence that's easy to recognize for what it is and easy to spot if it's fake.

      Something that isn't mentioned on the US Customs site is when you apply for a passport, a state DMV-issued photo ID is not considered 'primary identification', but a driver's license is. The funny part is (at least in New York State) the same burden of proof is needed to apply for both DMV-issued state ID's or driver's licenses.

      At the time I applied for a passport, a state DMV-issued ID was all I had (it being easy to get by without driving in NYC). The first post office passport window clerk I spoke to brought up this issue, and pointed out I would need some extra documents (social security, insurance card, etc) and bring along a relative posessing a driver's license to fill out and sign a form attesting to my identity. When I went to a different (closer) post office (with extra documents and my father in tow), the clerk didn't ask for the extra proof of ID I had brought, and of course, the State Dept sent me back a freindly letter essentially saying "We need more proof that you are you", with a list of documents that "have proved in the past to be helpful in establshing identity". After stuffing the return envelope with everything from copies of old (more than 5 years) utility bills, pay stubs, high school diploma, selective service registration acknowlegement letter (I think that one clinched it) the application went through without any additional comment.

      Returning from my second trip from Canada (traveling via Greyhound bus) one passenger was detained at the border because he had apparently flown to Canada from Cuba and was now attempting to enter the US. Needless to say, our bus left without him.

      ---PCJ

    58. Re:Of course it's not by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1
      It has changed, indeed. We drove to Canada last summer. The Canadian border agent asked us if we had any knives, too.

      Returning to the U.S. was interesting to me. I expected long lines and hassles. It was a snap, probably because the van was loaded to the gills with camping equipment and bicycles. We spent the night about an hour south of the border in Vermont. The next morning, about 100 miles into the state, we came to a U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint in the middle of the freaking interstate highway. I'd say U.S. security isn't quite as dumb as we sometimes think it is.

      Recalling the Border Patrol checkpoint, it makes me wonder whatever happened to license checks. It used to be that the police would periodically set up along a relatively quiet road and check licenses and registration of every motor vehicle that came along. It seemed to be an effective way of catching people driving under suspension and so forth. But I haven't seen one for over 20 years.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    59. Re:Of course it's not by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 1
      That's all well and fine, but the fact is that the majority of us Americans lack a passport.

      Well, that's pretty dumb. Don't they travel or something?

      --
      -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
    60. Re:Of course it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has NOTHING to do with Canada. THis is simply step 57 (or was it 58) in the grand plan to require ID on all citizens at ALL times. Papers Please.

    61. Re:Of course it's not by pestie · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it's changed much, at least as far as Americans entering Canada. Last time I crossed the border I was in the back seat of an SUV. Two Canadians were in front (my girlfriend and her mother). The SUV's rear windows were tinted and the customs agent couldn't even see me. She asked the usual question about why they had crossed the border, to which they replied "to pick up our American friend at the airport." Not only did the Canadian customs agent not ask to see my ID, she didn't even bother to look at me! I must radiate an aura of non-threateningness or something. Heh...

    62. Re:Of course it's not by legojenn · · Score: 1
      I cross in the US quite often to go camping in the Adirondacks/Thousand Islands areas of New York and I have used my passport for the past 10 years or so and never spend more than a minute at the booth. I guess it's obvious what I am up to with a car full of camping equipment, a bicycle on top and crossing at one of the closest entry points in Ontario to the Adirondacks. Also, I have not experienced a secondary inspection since I was 21 (I'm 35 now), and that's only because I had files from the office in the back seat and they wanted to be sure I was not going to the US to work. I prefer to use the passport because my address is not written on it. If US Customs wants to know where I live, then they can ask.

      A friend who travels with me uses his driver's licence and birth certificateand seems to deal with the occasional problem getting across. From what I understand, the birth certificate identifies where you were born and therefore your citizenship and your driver's licence identifies you as being the person named on the birth certificate. There is an issue of division of powers that make the use of the DL/BC combo a bad idea.

      In Canada and the US, the responsibility for auto & driver licencing and vital statistics are provincial/state responsibilities so it is doubltful that there will ever be a US (or Canadian) citizen ID. Responsibility for customs/border services is federal. Provincial/state governments do not deal with the federal government of the other country. So, it is not entirely appropriate to show provincial ID to an agent of the other federal government. Plus, it is a lot of work to be able to be sure that ID from 50 states, 10 provinces, 3 territories and DC.

      (almost) Anything that speeds border crossing is a good idea and reducing 65+ pieces of acceptable documents to less than 10 would help.

      It is however, ridiculous (er I mean redicyaliss) to have to produce a passport to come home.

      I have no idea how the division of powers and border works in Mexico, but I assume it's similar to Canada and the US. Aye, more ID possibilities!

      --
      I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
    63. Re:Of course it's not by PhB95 · · Score: 1

      Don't really know how it is at the US/Canada border, but I lived at the german/french border for years. As long as I had a local license plate on my car, I was almost never even stopped ! The officers, both german and french, kept waving me to drive on. When I tried it with Parisian license plates they were more inclined to check my ID card, which on one occasion I had forgotten. I had to follow the officer in the office, where my drivers license was examined (does not mention citizenship here but has postal address on it). The man then asked me a few questions about my parents, and some local details he must have tought a foreigner would not be aware of, and then told me I could go !
      That's years ago, nowadays the two countries are inside the "Schengen treaty territory" and there isn't anything more than a road sign at the border, although at some crossovers a slowly decaying building still stands as a reminder of past times.
      Funny how things evolve in opposite directions in different places.

      --
      One of those Europeans...
    64. Re:Of course it's not by Giggle+Stick · · Score: 1
      ... just ask any 18-year old Michiganian ...

      I believe they're Michiganders, you Canuck!

    65. Re:Of course it's not by Giggle+Stick · · Score: 1
      Well, I'm not sure. We were driving through Canda from Michigan to New York, merley as a short-cut. The 9/11 Attacks happened while we were in the vicinity of London, Ontario. I was thinking, "Oh Crap, are they gonna let us back in right away, or are we gonna be stuck here a day or two while things settle down."

      Well, the US Border folks were looking in trunks of cars that were entering the US, and he found a big taped up box in the car in front of us. The guard said, "What's in the box?", and the owner of the car said "Books". Then the guard said OK, and shut the trunk. All they asked us was, if the children in the car were ours or not. I thought that was a very weird question. This was about 4-5 hours after the attacks had begun.

      It seemed like they had started some kind of superficial attempts at being more vigilant, but when faced with any actual searching, just didn't bother.

    66. Re:Of course it's not by JeremyALogan · · Score: 1

      yeah, it is... I've wondered why they couldn't put a little checkbox (or similar) on our drivers licenses that indicates that we're citizens... would make it so much easier. Especially considering that I have to have one of those anyhow and a passport is $90. Come to think of it, I had to show my birth certificate when I got my drivers license in the first place (they needed two forms of ID).

    67. Re:Of course it's not by JeremyALogan · · Score: 1

      oh jeeze... I forgot it just went up last month. As of March 8, 2005 the Passport Fees are now $97... that doesn't include the "execution fee" which seems to start at $30 and go up. So yeah... minimum cost is now about $123.

    68. Re:Of course it's not by PhB95 · · Score: 1

      Man that's really expensive ! The price for a passport here is aroud 75 Euro, all inclusive. And moreover most countries accept our ID card in lieu of the pass, and this card is for free : Most people here don't have a passport. (except those who travel to the US ;-)

      --
      One of those Europeans...
    69. Re:Of course it's not by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      You're supposed to keep those?

      Oops.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    70. Re:Of course it's not by Coolpup · · Score: 1

      Not sure if you meant to be funny, but yes. That is your proof that you are registered with Selective Service. Without it, I believe you are subject to fines and/or imprisionment (if ever caught). Can anyone confirm or deny this?

  132. What next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you leave California for Arizona, you can't enter AZ without your passport? Or return?

    Look up "Soviet Union" and "Internal Passport" on Google.

  133. My ambition to move to Canda just got a boost by xant · · Score: 1

    I've done some serious research on what it would take to become a Canadian citizen, mostly because it's America with 40% less fascism. Anything that facilitates travel between the two countries represents a risk that the two countries will begin to become more and more alike, with the American culture eventually drowning out the last vestiges of the Canadian one.

    This passport thing seems like a step in the right direction. Don't intermix bad American crap with good Canadian freedom.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    1. Re:My ambition to move to Canda just got a boost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll enjoy cheap healthcare and prescription drugs in Canada, but I imagine when you want quality healthcare, you'll be heading home.

    2. Re:My ambition to move to Canda just got a boost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Myth. The quality of Canadian health care is as good or better than American health care. The waiting lists for getting access to certain treatments and tests is worse, though. On the other hand in the USA if you cannot afford health care, you are basically shit outta luck. Despite the fact that the USA spends more per capita on health care than Canada does, there are more people WITHOUT health coverage in the USA than the entire population of Canada.

    3. Re:My ambition to move to Canda just got a boost by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      I like Canada. A lot. Don't go there and screw it up. Go to France.

      Thanks.

  134. *I* remember when.. by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    I was in Seattle and picked up a girlfriend of mine for a trip to Vancouver, BC to visit some people. She's from Denmark and only had her Danish passport. I'm American and had my US Passport & California drivers license with me.

    She got into Canada with no problems. Me, on the other hand.. they gave me the third degree! They asked names & phone numbers & addresses of the people that I'd be staying with, and also made me prove that I had $100/day for expenses available to me. I have no idea where they got the $100/day figure, but they were adamant about it.

    She spent about 2 minutes at Customs, where I was held up for almost an hour. All we were going to do was visit some school friends at a restaurant in BC. I sure as hell didn't expect the Canadian Inquisition....

    1. Re:*I* remember when.. by Viv · · Score: 1

      Nobody expects the Canadian Inquisition! ... er, wait.

  135. funerals and such by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when's the memorial service? for the land of the free.

  136. Little border towns by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a lot of small towns near the border, on both sides with businesses have become dependant on the very easy and quick ability for people to pass back and forth across the border without the slightest hassle. I wonder if this change will dampen the economies of those small towns. Using a passport is only a small hassle, but it's a small hassle where previously there were none.

    When I was a small child my family went on a car trip through the canadian rockies. The border guard was one guy in a booth not much larger than a photomat. There wasn't even a barrier gate across the road that lifted out of the way or anything like that, just a stop sign. This was the full extent of the border crossing questions:

    guard (seeing family station-wagon): Hello folks, May I ask your purpose in entering Canada?
    my Dad: sightseeing camping. (obvious from the car full of supplies).
    guard: Are you planning on staying long?
    my Dad: just two weeks.
    guard: Do you have any guns or fruit? (What an odd combination of of questions)
    my Dad - a bag of apples we just bought for lunch later.
    guard: If you just bought them it should be okay. We're worried about the spread of fruit flies from further south but if you just bought them in washington they'll be fine.
    guard: yup! Welcome to Canada. Have a wonderful trip.
    my Dad - Don't you need to see some ID?
    guard: I suppose if it will make you feel better.

    The re-entry into the US was even more lax - The guard saw the license plates on the car were from the US, and asked, "Let's see - plates from Wisconsin - car packed for a camping trip - Coming back from a vacation I see? Okay - Welcome back, go on through..."

    Sigh. Those were friendlier times.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    1. Re:Little border towns by optimus2861 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      There's a lot of small towns near the border, on both sides with businesses have become dependant on the very easy and quick ability for people to pass back and forth across the border without the slightest hassle.

      Indeed. I'm reminded of the story of a New Brunswick couple who had their mail stopped for a while. They're Canadian citizens living on Canadian soil, but the only road to their home curves through American territory. One of those sleepy little border communities; they've lived there for over 50 years. In 2003 the American customs agents started "cracking down" on the couple -- in addition to stopping their mail and their newspaper, they also refused permission for any of their family to cross the border to visit them and even threatened to arrest the man for illegally crossing the border. Story #1 Story #2.

      One can only dread the kind of hassles people like that will go through now.

    2. Re:Little border towns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are making similar comments all over this thread. I think it's important to note something: this has been happening all over Europe as well for some time. I used to live in The Netherlands and when I'd drive into Germany, I just had to slow down enough for the border guard to wave me through, and I'm not even white. Now Europe has become even more open. And that's the saddest thing of all: while other countries are becoming more open, USA is becoming more hostile to all foreigners.

    3. Re:Little border towns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seems like you Canadians are pretty lucky to have a fairly 'well-behaved' border with the US.

      Imagine what would happen when you had a border like the community of Baarle, where the post office determines the citizenship of a house by the country its *front door* is in. Corners of fields, streets and even houses can all be in different countries. A farmer can plough across three borders all in the same field.

      Map: http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/baarle.htm
      Pics: http://grenzen.150m.com/baarleGB.htm

    4. Re:Little border towns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still like that in some places. I live in northern Minnesota (just outside of Duluth), so the Canadian border isn't very far away. I frequently visit my fiance' who lives in Thunder Bay. Of course if you visit as often as I and some others do, the guards get to know who you are and just wave you through.

      I believe I was only asked for any type of ID for the first couple of times and once when a new Canadian customs officer was hired/assigned to the Grand Portage, MN crossing.

      Even though this passport hooplah will piss off a bunch of people, I doubt it will be much, if any, hassle to those small border towns like Grand Portage, MN and the Crooks township in Ontario.

    5. Re:Little border towns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, Comrade Cheney (may he live forever as our Blessed Holy Protector) is only protecting your children from heathens, foreigners, and dangerous people with the wrong color skin, who would eat your children if Comrade Cheney were not watching over you.

    6. Re:Little border towns by findingflow · · Score: 1

      > Sigh. Those were friendlier times. Maybe. And you were white.

    7. Re:Little border towns by AC5398 · · Score: 1

      I once agreed to be my parents designated driver and chauffeur them and their friends one New Years Eve in New York State. We live in Ontario.

      On the night in question all had a great time, and coming back my father and his friend took to caterwauling, er, singing in the backseat of the car.

      At the border, he Canadian Customs agent, from as far away as possible, asked me, "Citizenship?" When I answered "Canadian," his response was to wave frantically while saying, "go, go."

      Guess he didn't need having us in the office, eh.

    8. Re:Little border towns by Micah · · Score: 1

      I've had similar experiences back "in those days" on the US/Canada border.

      But around the same era (1984 to be exact), my family was treated as virtual terrorists ... crossing from Arizona to California! For a couple freeking GERBILS!

      We were moving from Texas to Oregon. I was a grade school kid and had a couple pet gerbils. We got to the border at Needles, CA. The agriculture inspector looked in our car and saw the gerbil cage. He gave us a sheet of paper with the heading in large letters: "WANTED: Gerbils are dangerous pests!"

      They were actually going to confiscate the things, out of concern for their wheat fields. Never mind that they were two females... My dad graciously decided to take us through Nevada instead of California (even though he had a sister in CA to visit). The inspecter guy actually ordered a statewide watch for our car in case we tried to get into CA somewhere else!

      If anyone is in California, I'd be really interested to know if they still ban gerbils... They were pretty rare in 1984, but are much more common pets now.

    9. Re:Little border towns by rynthetyn · · Score: 1

      California is a crazy state in general--things that nobody else considers dangerous (lead crystal, for example), are required to have huge warnings in California.

      To be honest though, I'm happier with international border security now than I was pre-9/11. I flew to Spain in the spring of 2001 and I was suprised by the general lack of security on both ends. Though, I am one of those people who can't help but be constantly scanning for security flaws or vunerabilities and thinking of where to head if something were to happen.

      --
      Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
    10. Re:Little border towns by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      That leads to some really silly warning labels, like:
      Warning: this product contains such-and-such, which has only been shown to be hazardous in Californina.

      I think the package was labeled that way as a deliberate "see how stupid you are" satirical joke to california.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  137. Erm, not with drivers license. by benow · · Score: 2, Informative

    Drivers license is not sufficient to enter the 'States. ID must have place of birth, therefor birth certificate or passport, and they prefer passport. That nugget would have saved me a day on the bus... the man don't bend much, man.

  138. What, you don't have a dentist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've known a Doctor for 2 years, or even visit a Dentist semi-occasionally, you have someone who can be the guarantor of your passport.

    I work in Software. I happen to know several Accountants, a couple of lawyers, and two Notary Publics.

  139. Far more than 50 formats by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    There are old licenses as well, many of which are trivial to forge. The new Arizona licenses are pretty good, you'd need some serious equipment ot forge them. However until he moved, my father had an old one that was basically just a printed peice of paper with his info and the state seal on it, and a picture of him laminated together.

    Another problem is driver licenses aren't citizenship documents, they are just a license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. Resident aliens, even illegal aliens, have them as well. A passport, if legitimate, is proof of citizenship.

  140. Best College Prank in 2008! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Watch out boys and girls, the next time you pass out drunk on the dorm couch...

    A few hours and a vomit covered tire-iron later, you might find yourself waking up on the wrong side of the line!

    1. Re:Best College Prank in 2008! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, just what we need, undocumented ex-College students living in a van down by the river because they can't get back into the US.

  141. well by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The tighter the grip using passports the greater the likeihood they'll get the people to eventually accept a National Identity Card so everywhere you go even inside the US can be tracked.

    It just shows another clear example of the governments agenda for the future and its all about tracking obviously.

    Another invasive thing now they want to be able to use the black boxes in people's car for insurance data purposes in legal cases. Most people aren't even aware that new cars have these devices built in and are recording everything.

    1. Re: well by gidds · · Score: 1
      they'll get the people to eventually accept a National Identity Card so everywhere you go... can be tracked.

      Look: you know that's a Bad Thing. I know that's a Bad Thing. But it's hard to explain in simple terms to any of the sheeple out there just how dangerous that would be.

      "It helps catch terrorists. If you're not a terrorist, what have you got to worry about?" they say. Because they don't have the capacity for abstract thought, it doesn't occur to them that you could have something to hide which is perfectly legal and even perfectly moral. Any scenarios you put to them get dismissed as impossible. Even the thought that a law enforcement officer could be anything other than perfect is incomprehensible...

      So how do you explain just what a Bad Thing that would be?

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    2. Re:well by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with a national ID card? It's obviously better than the system the US is using now (a mix of Social Security and Driver's licenses).

      I don't mind tracking that much, what I do mind is the active (and useless) harassement they do while doing so. I've been to the EU, specifically Spain, where they are very suspicious of Latin Americans because they tend to stay, and I only had to answer a series of quite reasonable questions.

      On the other hand, the US encourages fingerprint taking, stupid searches (so my shoe has some bomb in it, but my 10kg of electronics equipment doesn't???) and paranoid attitudes as I described in another post.

      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
  142. No big deal... by cubicleman · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I take my passport with me anytime I go outside the US now, so why should it be any different with Canada?

  143. Re:Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Mas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know quite a few energetic immigrants who were just passing as tired. And a few posing as huddled who weren't confused or crowded one little bit.

  144. Took 'em long enough and WHAT? by Palal · · Score: 1

    It took 'em long enough to tighten the borders. I seriously wish they would put photocells at the mexican border so that if anyone crosses, he/she would get shocked. As for Canada, I've had more problems with Canadian authorities who called me "suspicious" asked me all these questions and then let me go (I've never been detained by anyone before, and I have a clean record) than with US authorities. As for not letting people cross back into the US w/o a passport - that's outrageous.

    --
    -Palal
  145. what a farce! by kingjosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If we really cared . . . there wouldn't have been a whole bunch of "Viva Bush" billboards all along the New Mexica and Arizona border crossing regions. Ever really wonder why the number of illegals entering our country has increased since Bush has been in office?

  146. It's recommended by the ICAO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The International Civillian Aviation Authority. They recommend that all children have a valid passport when travelling by air as a step to help combat child trafficing. (According to the Canadian Passport website)

  147. Aren't Canadians taxed enough??! by d_jedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So now I'll need to get a passport - which costs $87, and must be renewed every 5 years - just to cross the border??!

    Uhm.. no thanks. I think I'll just stay at home.

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
    1. Re:Aren't Canadians taxed enough??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true. I'm from Windsor Ont and I would go literally every other weekend to Detroit for concerts, Red Wings/Lions/Pistons games, restaraunts, bars and many other things. I have friends that go University at Michigan, Wayne State and Oakland U and I have never had a passport. Border crossing has been getting worse and worse over the last few years and this doesn't help any.

    2. Re:Aren't Canadians taxed enough??! by elyobelyob · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm not going to the US ever again, if it can be helped. Fingerprinted for going in from the UK for f***s sake. We should fingerprint *just* the US citizens in return.

    3. Re:Aren't Canadians taxed enough??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So now I'll need to get a passport - which costs $87, and must be renewed every 5 years - just to cross the border??!
      $97.
      Uhm.. no thanks. I think I'll just stay at home.
      Oh, you were being sarcastic.
    4. Re:Aren't Canadians taxed enough??! by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 0

      I don't know where this 97.00 and 87.00 dollars comes from. I just got one at the firest of the year it was 80 bucks not including 15 bucks for having them take the pictures. It took all of 10 minutes to get. When I came back from the cruise it was only all the poor SOBs with drivers licenses and birth certificates who were standing in a slow long ass line. I blew right through customs.

      --
      If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
      Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
    5. Re:Aren't Canadians taxed enough??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try to tell that to the folks who live in point roberts, washington (a nice, little-known vacation spot, great place to charter a boat, btw)... isolated from the rest of the usa. the ONLY way to travel there by auto is through canada. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=point+roberts,wa&hl= en you must go through customs (going and coming back) just to get to a grocery store that doesn't have gas pumps out front. and try not to slice a drive at the country club... if the ball goes over roosevelt drive, you'd have to go through customs and take your passport, just to retrieve your ball!

      when i was much younger, my family lived very close to the canadian border (outside of a small town, middle of nowhere in far northern minnesota.. about the same latitude as the aformentioned point roberts country club).. we used to make regular trips (couple times a month) to winnipeg just to go grocery shopping... a shorter and easier drive than to grand forks, north dakota (the nearest town south of the border WITH a decent supermarket). never was a hassle crossing the border, even on the way back with an old ford station wagon loaded to the roof with stuff we obviously didn't take with us.

      later on in life, after the the north stars took off for dallas, i used to make regular trips to winnipeg for hockey games.. only once was i ever bothered going through customs.. and that one instance was bordering on harrassment and unlawful detention. took over 3 hours while they literally tore my auto apart looking for something that was never there in the first place. apparently, they frown on cross-border trips that last only 5 hours, they thought i was some drug courier or something, even though i'd made the same sort of trip many times before. that was about 12 years ago. haven't been back up there since, even though i absolutely love the winnipeg area and had vacationed in central canada too many times to count before then.

      i might just have to schedule one last trip up there, leaving BEFORE the passport for re-entry becomes mandatory, and not trying to come back until after it is... i wouldn't mind being stuck up there the way things are turning out down here....

    6. Re:Aren't Canadians taxed enough??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I've been in Windsor three years and went over once only, for work. Once the patriot act came down I figured it was no longer worth the hassle... and while Detroit has great music, the place is such an obvious decaying monument to racism that it just doesn't feel like a 'free' country... a pissed-off place with lots of civilian armament and twitchy cops. Joy.

    7. Re:Aren't Canadians taxed enough??! by d_jedi · · Score: 1
      --
      I am the maverick of Slashdot
  148. very clever... by bmajik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I however find it hard to fault the US for requiring documents that everyone else requires for entrance into their nations.

    If requiring a passport for entrance in the US is inconvenient because its hard for some people to get passports from their current governments, is it fair to lay all of the blame on the US?

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    1. Re:very clever... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If requiring a passport for entrance in the US is inconvenient because its hard for some people to get passports from their current governments, is it fair to lay all of the blame on the US?

      Yes.

      The US was built by immigrants. They loved the open borders and free/cheap labor that came with it. Most of the non-binding documents still indicate that the US is an open land of opportunity. It is a policy decision, however, which results in some very strict travel rules (if you are coming from many countries, you have to prove that you will lose more by staying in the US than going back, and that's a lot harder than it sounds).

    2. Re:very clever... by Mobster75 · · Score: 1
      The US was built by immigrants. They loved the open borders and free/cheap labor that came with it.

      What open borders? When my mom and her family came to the US from Italy in the 1950's, they had to have proper papers from the Italian government just to enter the country when they got off the boat. And it took some years of taking US History classes and understanding basic english just to qualify for the exam to become a naturalized citizen. None of them complained... They were happy to do it and proudly call the US their home now.

    3. Re:very clever... by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      You can return to Uruguay with our Identity Card (Cédula de Identidad), which is provided to every citizen when he or she is born.

      We do need passwords to travel to countries which require it (all except for neighbours Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay).

      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
  149. Let them drink their own medicine by Acer500 · · Score: 1

    It's no wonder the US government will be tightening security at the expense of their citizen's confort.

    It's been said that if you allow the government to do something (in this case thighten security, but it can be taxes, etc.) on others, sooner or later, it will be applied to you.

    Let's see if US citizens like being treated like criminals as other visitors are ("Officer, I forgot my passport. Isn't my ID enough?" - "No, stay in detention. You will be interrogated shortly").

    Me, I never visited the US, but an United Arways flight gave me a taste of how it can be like (probing my shoes?? and people can go aboard with 10 kg of electronics that can be disassembled into anything you want - that's just false security).

    Not to mention the last time my father went there... in spite of being a prominent member of an international law association on his way to a congress he was harassed by the inmigration officers just from coming from a "Third World" country (and Uruguay is a lot better educated than the US, and better in many regards, we're just poorer).
    It made little difference to them that my father had gone there lots of times before, and could have stayed if he wanted to...

    --
    There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    1. Re:Let them drink their own medicine by bombadier_beetle · · Score: 1

      (and Uruguay is a lot better educated than the US, and better in many regards, we're just poorer)

      Nice to see your jingoistic bigotry shining through.

      --

      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
    2. Re:Let them drink their own medicine by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      First of all, an apology. I didn't mean to come trough that way (and I had to look up what jingoistic meant :-).

      That said, my statement is not entirely biased, as you undoubtedly don't know, and I will try to prove (mod me offtopic for this :P ):

      Uruguay has an iliteracy rate of 2%, while the US has a slightly higher 3%
      Life expectancy is similar, with the US being slightly higher at about 76 years to Uruguay's 74
      Slightly higher schooling expectancy for US citizens, at an average 16 years to Uruguay's 15 (both well above average, trailing only the nordic countries and Australia)
      The Economist, which can be said to be biased, ranked the US at 13th for quality of life, with Uruguay at 43rd, behind Argentina and Chile, in 2005. However, it is believed in South America that Uruguay actually has the best quality of life, as seen in the World Institute for Development Economics Research (maybe less biased than the Economist), which places both the US and Uruguay in the top 20 countries (the US at 2nd, Uruguay at 18th).
      Other sources state that Montevideo has a similar quality of life than New York

      Sources:UN's statistics page http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/so cind
      The Economisthttp://www.economist.com/theworldin/inter national/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372495&d=2005
      FinFactshttp://www.finfacts.com/
      http://www.wider.unu.edu/conference/conference-200 3-2/conference%202003-2-papers/papers-pdf/Rahman%2 0Tauhidur%20250403.pdf

      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    3. Re:Let them drink their own medicine by bombadier_beetle · · Score: 1

      Thanks, although maybe I'm the one who should apologize: despite my best efforts, my country has allowed an administration to destroy the US reputation and effectively erase much of the good we've done over the last 50. I didn't vote for Bush, and I funded his opponents as much as I legally could, but there are limits to what one person can do.

      However, if you ever do visit the United States and are in the San Francisco Bay Area, I invite you to stay with my family and me. At least I'll be showing one person that America isn't all bad...

      --

      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
    4. Re:Let them drink their own medicine by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      I do realize that there is a big percentage of the population that does not approve of your government's actions, and I do not want to generalize.

      In fact, I've always admired the US a lot, and that is why I'm so angry at the things they are doing, and I would very much like to visit it.

      But it's no longer easy for Uruguayan citizens to visit your country, even relatively well-known ones such as my father, even harder for the rest of us. During the Clinton administration, Uruguay was one of the few countries that was granted visa-free entry to the US, but the current administration revoked that because of (somewhat justified) fear of inmigration and counterfeiting (Uruguayan passports became very sought after by the rest of South American countries, and lots of fellow countrymen emigrated to the US, most of them educated young men).

      Thanks for your offer, and if you ever come to Uruguay let me know, and I extend the same invitation to you :-)

      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
  150. (OT) Re:Mexico, Eh? by pegr · · Score: 1

    I got robbed, my car broke down 4 times, and my dryer died. Please send money.

    Well, I might had you:
    a) Not used Frontpage to make that pitiful web page,
    b) Not inserted a midi file in it,
    c) Thought to entertain me a bit with your tale of woe.

    I get a better sob story from bums on the street...

    1. Re:(OT) Re:Mexico, Eh? by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 1

      I didn't use Frontpage to make that pitiful web page.

    2. Re:(OT) Re:Mexico, Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I got robbed

      Happens to just about everyone at some point. Consider it a learning experience.

      The burglar took my DVD collection,

      Luxury items. Who cares?

      my only jacket,

      Try Salvation Army/Goodwill. Ten bucks will get you a couple good jackets.

      and my laptop,

      Looks like you'll be using the school computer lab then.

      whose hard drive contained my college term papers.

      Money now won't solve your failure to make backups then. Get thee to the computer lab and start typing.

      Within the next few weeks, my car broke down four times

      Wah. My car only broke down once, on xmas day. Unlike your car, it could not be fixed and was unable to break down three more times.

      my dryer broke,

      Your dryer broke? Christ, if that's not a luxury item, I don't know what is. I've never had a dryer at all. Go to the damn laundromat like everyone else you bum!

      and I found out I need about $6000 for braces.

      And I need about $8000 for a nose job. Why are do you think others should donate to your vanity?

      Please send money.

      Please present more compelling reasons. It sounds more like you should be sending me money.

    3. Re:(OT) Re:Mexico, Eh? by saforrest · · Score: 1

      Man, your dryer died? Do you realize how much like a spoiled child you sound?

      You realize there are millions of people on this planet who live on less than a dollar a day, right?

    4. Re:(OT) Re:Mexico, Eh? by whmac33 · · Score: 1

      That's the best way to get free money I've heard in a while. Mad I didn't think of the idea.

  151. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by Quixote · · Score: 1
    Even being a foreigner here, there was a time when they'd just ask "where do you live?" and I'd say, "Buffalo", and they'd let me in. I have come back from Canada with a student ID (of course, not every INS agent is this considerate).

    It also depends on your license plate #. If you cross often, and always in the same manner, then chances are they'll just waive you through (and I'm not talking about Nexus here).

  152. I can't even spell Canada... by kosty · · Score: 1

    C - Eh? - N - Eh? - D - Eh?

    Got it.

    --
    "Democracy." It's just a slogan.
  153. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by Freeform · · Score: 0

    Driver's licenses and birth certificates are essentially "no proof" as the former does not actually indicate citizenship or residency, the latter doesn't have a photo, neither has a standard format, and both are easy to fake.

    Then I guess there's no proof that over 70% of Americans are citizens then. Seriously, those documents are what the passport is issued based on.

  154. Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the northern reaches of Maine, you barely even need to stop your car to get to and from Canada. Only once have I been asked for id, and that was because it was 3am and I had a girl in the passenger seat.

    Entry conversation is basically:
    "Are you a citizen of the US?/Where are you from?"
    "Where'd you go and for how long?"
    "Move along."

  155. Sure it does by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
    So I guess my birth certificate proves nothing then

    Assuming it's authentic - and BCs are retarded trivial to fake - it proves that someone was born in the US. Even ignoring counterfeiting, how do you prove that you're that person? With your driver's license? OK, maybe, since license+BC gets you a passport. But only if your license has the biometric stuff they want, in the format they can read. Since it won't, I can see them wanting a passport.

    Reminds me of when I went to the DMV. They needed a BC or passport to get a license in the state I just moved to. I offered my old license and social security card, but no. I needed a BC. I didn't bother to point out that since I can use my social and drivers license to GET a BC, that they might as well just let me use what I had with me. But hey, that's the DMV for ya.

    I not going back anytime soon, unless there's a death in the family. Even then I might request that they move the funeral down here. I might miss your billiard table smooth roads an' all, but the weather's better here. So I'll stay away. Just do me a favor. Stay the hell away from me, too. Damn, I wish the world had the balls to turn their back on you bastards.

    Um, OK. Just wondering, what part of the US is it you hate so much that's actually better in Mexico (other than the weather)? If it's individual rights, you haven't run into the cops down there. Sounds like redundant whiny US-bashing.

    1. Re:Sure it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's individual rights, you haven't run into the cops down there.

      Well, I did spend a night in jail here once, and they even served me the beer they busted a Mexican with(drinking in the street is highly frowned upon). The cops treat me better here than they ever did in the states. On top of everything else, they're much cheaper to bribe, even on my budget.

      ...Just wondering, what part of the US is it you hate so much...

      The part where people give up other people's rights in order to maintain the illusion of safety. We should be expecting the tattoos anytime now. I'm sure you will be welcoming that too. I hope somebody marches you in front of all the bodies you've piled up. All the best...Give my regards to Broadway.

    2. Re:Sure it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wondering, what part of the US is it you hate so much that's actually better in Mexico (other than the weather)?

      The price of weed?

    3. Re:Sure it does by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      The part where people give up other people's rights in order to maintain the illusion of safety

      So you'd rather be in Mexico, where you don't have the rights or the safety but at least they're honest about it?

      We should be expecting the tattoos anytime now.

      Wow is that melodramatic. All that because what, border patrol wants to actually make sure you're a citizen? Or because they want to try to make sure you're an idiot before they let you on an airplane? Not a compelling argument. I don't see your slope, let alone it's slipperiness.

      I hope somebody marches you in front of all the bodies you've piled up.

      I ain't piled up shit.

    4. Re:Sure it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'd rather be in Mexico, where you don't have the rights or the safety but at least they're honest about it?

      If you think you have rights and safety, then the illusion is working perfectly. At least I know where I stand here, and can work around it. And believe it or not(I don't care), I do feel every bit as safe here as I ever did up there. Up there, I have been assaulted, and my apartment has benn robbed(in a very nice part of town). So I don't consider your statements about freedom and safety to be particularly valid. Some of the corruption down here is due to your influence peddling. We have road side searches so your gov't will provide more "anti-drug" money. We have to put on a show for you also.

      I don't see your slope, let alone it's slipperiness.

      Yeah, the wool is pretty thick. At least it keeps you nice and warm. From the outside we can see a bit more clearly. Like they say, life inside the empire is pretty nice. Too bad you don't want to see what goes on outside the walls. Be sure to wear non-skid shoes. The slope is getting steeper. Before you know it, you'll be looking up from the crevice you fell into...if they let you.

    5. Re:Sure it does by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 0
      If you think you have rights and safety, then the illusion is working perfectly.

      Uh huh. Then perhaps you have some evidence other than your assertions and snide comments? I have never since 9/11 been deterred in anything I attempted to do. You've nicely couched your point in a manner to be impossible to disprove - either I agree with you, or I just don't see why I'm wrong. That stinks of arrogance.

      And believe it or not(I don't care), I do feel every bit as safe here as I ever did up there

      Illusion's working perfectly. ;) You'll feel that way until something causes you to feel otherwise. What would you take as evidence, aside from you getting killed? Crime rates? Higher in Mexico. Murder? Same.

      Up there, I have been assaulted, and my apartment has benn robbed(in a very nice part of town).

      Wow, sample size of 1. Despite that, the crime rate is higher in Mexico. I'll take stats that cover the entire country over your micro-sample. Testimony is the weakest form of evidence, if that's all you have save your breath (or fingers).

      Some of the corruption down here is due to your influence peddling.

      Wow, you are good at making your statements completely disprovable. Any disadvantage in Mexico is out fault! Even if I were to grant that, doesn't mean it's a good idea to live there.

      We have road side searches so your gov't will provide more "anti-drug" money. We have to put on a show for you also.

      And you want to live under such a sellout government? Funny, I have the 4th amendment.

      Yeah, the wool is pretty thick. At least it keeps you nice and warm. From the outside we can see a bit more clearly.

      Have anything other that mixed metaphors and arrogance to offer as evidence there? Yes, you the enlightened profit see all. Yet you have yet to utter a single provable statement as to why living in Mexico is better than the US. Crime? No. Rights? No. So what do you have there other than weather and the price of weed?

      Before you know it, you'll be looking up from the crevice you fell into...if they let you.

      If the evidence is that compelling surely you have some?

    6. Re:Sure it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That stinks of arrogance.

      Easy to say from inside the fortress. Hearing an American talk about arrogance is like hearing Ghengis Kahn or Pol Pot talk about mass murder.

      Crime rates? Higher in Mexico. Murder? Same.

      At least here, the gov't is prohibited from commiting murder(on paper anyway). Unlike yours.

      Funny, I have the 4th amendment.

      That is funny. You act like it's actually being obeyed or something. Your 4th amendment is worthless right now. Along with your 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 14th(1st section) at least. Those are the easy ones. Please, don't try to pull the same crap on me as they do to you. Your propaganda is no different from ours. It's just much slicker. There's just no beating that Hollywood machine. Your place is absolutely no better than mine. It's just prettier, nothing more. But the make-up is cracking, and soon even you will see what really going on. This is no different than what the USSR did to hold its people captive. Requiring a passport to re-enter your own country is no different than prohibiting your exit if you don't possess a passport in the first place. And soon the gov't will deny passports on the slightest trivialities. It's a shame that you refuse to see that. The main fact is that you people have simply become hysterical. Your country is becoming a giant gun turrent. It looks like one of those cartoon steel plate igloos with all sorts of cannons poking out of it, pointing in every direction, shooting to that 1930's MGM cartoon music. BANG...BANG...BANG,BANG,BANG. Oh, well... It's a big world out there. Too bad some of the best parts are controlled by maniacs. That goes in general, not just the US.

      You know the funny(sad) thing about Mexico and other places is that the bad things they do, they do to themsleves(each other). You people are doing it to everybody else. Until you see(more like feel) the other end of your "big stick", you will never understand. Like I've said to others, carry on, the world is your ashtray. I miss my mom...

    7. Re:Sure it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need to add to my last post...In case you haven't noticed, Mexico has no travel restrictions outside the country. They don't interrogate me when I return. They simply check for contraband. The Mexican customs doesn't become upset if I didn't use a credit card in my travels. They don't ask me where I've been, or how long I've been there. They know it's irrelevent. All the necessary info has been stamped on my passport. Can you say the same about the American gov't? When it comes to trouble, you won't find any "terrorists" tageting Mexicans. Can you say the same about the Americans? Where the stste department recommends that you don't display your rnationality with flags, etc.?? A Mexican can display anything but their private parts and not get into trouble. I suppose you still believe that Americans are being targeted only because they "hate your freedom"?

    8. Re:Sure it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and furthermore...
      So what do you have there other than weather and the price of weed?

      Besides a woman and lots of kids, what else is there?? If the kids are happy, I'm happy. I'm not sure what you're point is. You go ahead and enjoy your credit card slavery. I'm off to the beach....again. Yep...another shitty day in paradise :)

  156. We will eventually come to a point where... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will eventually reach a point where there are so many restrictions on entering, so many hassles to enter (fingerprints, visa process, harassment by border officials), and where foreigners have enough fear of being detained for whatever reason (cf. Dmitry Sklyarov, Guantanamo Bay detainees, etc) that people might lose interest in coming to the US. Oh wait, that won't happen because they will still want to come here to shop because the dollar will have collapsed right around that time, and also you'll be able to buy used SUVs for $100,000 (500 Euros).

  157. and Florida Tourism .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... drops through the floor.

    The second the US starts increasing the barriers to entry, Canadians will start looking at alternative vacations spots as being more attractive.

    1. Re:and Florida Tourism .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to where? europe?, don't make me laugh, canadians don't recognize their obnoxious roots, Mexico? they hate latin americans Trust me they would eat any kind of crap to go to the US. Some may never return and stay illegaly in the US.

  158. "Reciprocity" by mhotchin · · Score: 2, Informative
    The CBC has an article saying that Canada will now review it's rules for americans and passport requirements: CBC Article.

    From TFA:

    WASHINGTON - In response to a new rule requiring most Canadians to carry passports for entry into the U.S., Public Security Minister Anne McLellan said Americans may also have to carry the document to enter the country.

    "Our system has really always worked on the basis of reciprocity," McLellan said outside the House of Commons.

    "And therefore we will review our requirements for American citizens and we're going to do that in collaboration with the United States.

    "There's no point in either of us going off in a direction without working together to determine how best we can facilitate the flow - a free flow - and movement of low-risk individuals."

    1. Re:"Reciprocity" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans answered:

      The hell with canada, no spring breaks, miserable weather, miserable people, let the US franchises flourish and just get the money, at the end money needs no passport.

  159. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

    It is entrely possible that when you pulled up to the booth, a camera got your plates, and pulled up the drivers license pictures of everyone who lives at the same address as where the car is registered.

  160. They're "restricting" our right of movement! by xander2032 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I personally don't like this idea. Living in the Detroit area, I've gone over to the Windsor side countless times! This is going to be a major inconvenience for people on both sides of the border. Cross border shopping and entertainment are very common things! People just go on the spur of the moment. Like there's a lot of great bars in Windsor. I especially enjoyed those when I was 19! But now I see a lot of cross border activities going away. Because there's this new "tax" on border crossings. Passports aren't cheap people! I don't have one, because I can't see paying that much for one. Since the only place I go is Canada. A lot of people aren't going to bother getting one... Because not only is it expensive, it's also a pain in the ass to get one. If they do go through with this, I think they should come out with a $20 "citizenship card" or something that you can get at your local security of state. Otherwise it's just going to be a major pain in the ass for everyone and it's going to hurt the economy on both sides of the border. This has to be the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of. I've always felt that we should have an open border with Canada. Why can't the US - Canada border be like the EU? I mean c'mon, Canada is not a third world country! I don't see what the problem is. But anyways... I'll be getting my passport soon, since I do cross the border quite often. I have a lot of friends on the Canadian side.

    1. Re:They're "restricting" our right of movement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't Canadians and US Citizens moving across the border, it's all the other riff-raff.

    2. Re:They're "restricting" our right of movement! by jcuervo · · Score: 1

      They're not that expensive ($97), and they don't take that much effort. Birth certificate, driver's license, a six-page form that you only need to fill out two pages of, SSN, and two photos (that they can take on-site).

      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
  161. This is still a bit troubling... by Speak+Forcefully · · Score: 1

    I happen to agree that the US can take whatever actions it feels proper to protect its borders, although I am troubled that long-term this might eventually entail an effort to keep US citizens from easily leaving and going INTO Canada.

  162. Re: not really by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    In the states it's get's over 100 degrees in the summer.

    Does yout blood boil? Is it hotter than hades?

    How many rods to the hogshead?

  163. DOnt came here with your troubles. by tristezo2k · · Score: 0, Troll

    If you are unable to stay in peace, because you killed, crashed and burned to get your oil DO NOT even think in to come mexico. Dont you get it? Canadians are wellcomed in every where. You yankees DO NOT.

  164. Non issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do a lot of travel as do many of my friends. I don't know anyone who would even think of travelling to or from the USA without their Canadian passport after September 11th. 10 years ago maybe, but not today.

  165. The mexicans ratted out the canadians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mexicans are not happy with the tougher anti-migrating actions the US is taking against them so they ratted out the canadians and their ilegal immigration schemes, we are not less thann the canadians, if they can "move" to the US without proper visas why we can't. More news will come.

    1. Re:The mexicans ratted out the canadians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Mexicans are not happy with the tougher anti-migrating actions the US is taking against them
      1) The United States government has largely been ignoring the problem of illegal immigration. There are approximately one thousand Americans in Arizona right now protesting this fact. (Note they are officially forbidden from any form of interaction with the people crossing the border, apart from medical aid and supplying food and water if needed, regardless of what Vicente Bush says. See their site.)

      2) There are far more illegal immigrants from Mexico than any other country. Google for stats; I heard (on the radio) 3/4ths of 12 million illegal immigrants were Mexican.

      3) I know a handful of foreigners presently in the country: One Aussie, one Brit, one Canadian, and maybe three Mexicans I know well enough to judge. The Aussie, Brit, and Canadian have been granted citizenship or residency in the United States: the Canadian by marriage, the Brit got her papers before immigrating, and I believe the Aussie is on a work visa. The other two Mexicans don't even speak enough English to qualify. I'm not even sure the third -- a good friend of mine, by the way -- is legal.

      4) The good people of Mexico are by no means "less" than those of any other country. It is the fact that there are so many of them coming to America illegally that calls for greater attention.
      if they can "move" to the US without proper visas why we can't.
      5) Have you tried getting a visa?

      6) How many Canadians do you think are in America without visas, versus how many Mexicans?


      Please note my repeated use of the word "illegal". I have nothing against people of any country coming here, but I do have a problem with them staying here when they shouldn't.

      If you're going to mod me down, please at least mod me "flamebait" instead of "troll". This is at least the fourth time I've tried to rewrite this post without being offensive, but it's bloody hard when you're talking about this particular subject.
  166. Apocryphal passport story by swb · · Score: 2, Funny

    A friend swears his brother actually saw this happen:

    Friend's brother flew from Hong Kong to Sydney. Flight was delayed on the ground in HK, somewhat significantly, so everyone was kind of late. The immigration person checking passports was, in the spirit of all good bureaucrats with functionally unlimited power within their sphere of influence, taking their time and making sure to ask the predominantly caucasian, Commonwealth-origin visitors lots of annoying questions.

    The man in front of my friend's brother was a British businessman (suit, etc) who was kind of put out by the slowness and the delays previously experienced. Once he got to the head of the queue, the immigration official apparently sensed this and began asking a series of questions of dubious value, including asking if the man had ever been incarcerated.

    Finally at his breaking point, the man said in a fairly haughty tone, "Why? Is that still a prerequisite for entry to Australia?"

    At that point the Briton was refused entry and was told he had to go back to Hong Kong.

    Like I said, I have no idea if this is true (did you ever need a passport to go from Britain, to HK, to Australia?) or not, but it's kind of a funny story.

    1. Re:Apocryphal passport story by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I think everyone needs a *visa* to get into Australia (except New Zealanders).

  167. The chain of deception by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2, Funny
    Assuming it's authentic - and BCs are retarded trivial to fake - it proves that someone was born in the US. Even ignoring counterfeiting, how do you prove that you're that person?
    Exactly.

    Terrorist Plan #27:

    • Obtain a Birth Certificate
    • Use it to get a legitimate Driver's License, and then a real US Passport
    • ????
    • Profi--- er, blow up something!!!! (because a Passport "proves" that you are, um, the holder of, er, I mean, a CITIZEN!!!!!)
    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:The chain of deception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't going to get it. They are overwhelmed by the hysteria. They obviously aren't thinking clearly anymore. Freedom loving people are doomed unless they can get their own act together and effectively organize. A unanimous, worldwide turning of their backs upon the whackos is the only way of rectifying the situation without violence. Otherwise the cycle will repeat forever. I've given up, and decided to retire to my own little corner, but like the cornered rat, I will bite if they get too close. So they tell me to stay away. Well, the feeling is mutual. I keep good people around me, and god help them if they try to fuck that up. The big problem is that planet earth is run by PEOPLE... PEOPLE!

  168. In Dresden.. by bmajik · · Score: 1

    you'll find VW's new phaeton factory, which is a work of art in and of itself. They've also made good progress on restoring the bombed out buildings/churches in the altstadt.

    I have pictures of Caterpillar machines moving dirt infront of a gorgeous church in the heart of Leipzig. Mercedes-Benz owns Caterpillar; it's an interesting justaxposition (sp?) to see american built and servied construction equipment owned by a west german company rebuilding ruins of east german buildings destroyed by american weapons, all being financed by a unified european currency.

    The staggering thing to me was how basically anything pretty in germany has been bombed and rebuilt twice. We saw the worlds largest mechanical pipe organ, one that JS Bach personally played and evaluated for the city of Lubeck... and a few 1000 year old churches, and the Koln Dom is too staggering for words or pictures to describe. ..

    The amazing beauty and uniqueness of these places makes it even more shameful that they weren't even touched during the soviet years.. and that the german politicians and people could fathom engaging in a second world war after the damage of the first...

    For all of the complaining europeans do about the US government and the US military.. its hard to stay quiet and not remind them that the US bailed europe out of two world wars of its own making.. and that both times we were attacked inspite of our more or less isolationist policies..... and when you see what war ravaged europe still looks like after 60 years.. i find it hard to argue with taking prevenative and pre-emptive measures to keep conflicts away from US soil as much as possible...

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    1. Re:In Dresden.. by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      i find it hard to argue with taking prevenative and pre-emptive measures to keep conflicts away from US soil as much as possible...

      If you're going to bomb the living shite out of some civilians, they'd better not be your own, right? That's what I found so cynical about the Iraq war. 12,000 Iraqi civilians dead, but it's worth it because Saddam's gone. Had they been US citizens there would've been uproar.

      And the Lusitania event was sheer stupidity considering the status of the region in which it was sunk...

      NOTICE!

      TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travelers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.

      IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY Washington, D.C. April 22, 1915

  169. yay .. or something by Kalidor · · Score: 1

    Frankly, I've always found it easier to enter the US without using my US passport then with.

    Bummer ... oh well .. no more going back the us for breakfast then.

    --

    Code softly but carry a big magnet.

  170. Just like the BSA is good for Linux by nietsch · · Score: 1

    This move is good for the rest of the world. I the Idiots that run the USA nowadays, then all that potential will seek somewhere else to go. And a lot of high potentials will choose not to live in that big banana republic.
    So just like any raid from the BSA is stimulating Linux adoption, this stupidity will benefit the rest of the world.

    Soooo... Thanks BushyBoy!

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
  171. canadaimmigrants.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    american minorities have nothing to do in Canada.

  172. obligatory Red October quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
    Captain Ramius: I suppose.
    Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers?
    Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state.

    Was this scene supposed to be humourous? Ridiculing how restrictive the rules of the Soviet Union were?
    Somebody else should comment, I just felt the quote was appropriate.

  173. Back to feudalism? by jonbrewer · · Score: 1

    Countries are too hard to protect. Why not just wall off the cities? Passport control could be at every exit of the DC Beltway. Manhattan is an island - shouldn't be too hard to protect it.

  174. Cuba by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
    I just can't believe the Canadian Immigration guy stamped my Passport and *then* told me the consequences of him doing that.

    It is one reason they don't stamp USA passports, because of all the fucked up laws. So you can make it there from Mexico or another country, and visit Cuba, and come back and nobody will ever know.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Cuba by sexecutioner · · Score: 1

      It's common practice not to stamp passports. I've gone from Oz to UK, all around Europe, NZ and back, and not one single stamp in my passport :(

  175. Exactly by ink · · Score: 1

    Remember, we can't let the terrorists win! We must go on with our "free" lives as if nothing happened on 9/11. The only problem seems to be that the government didn't heed their own advice... If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.

    --
    The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
  176. ID? Bullshit. by siliconwafer · · Score: 1

    I live very near the Canadian border in western New York state, and cross several times per week. Quite often, the customs inspection when returning back to the USA is a joke.

    "Anything to declare?"
    "No."
    *Customs officer waves hand to proceed.*

    So much for an ID check or vehicle check. How do they even know I'm a US citizen? How do they know I don't have a terrorist in my trunk? What a joke.

    1. Re:ID? Bullshit. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're white, therefore you don't have any ties to terrorism.

      You're male, thus there's no point in strip-searching you / checking body cavities.

      Insightful or troll? It is now at the point where I can't tell either.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    2. Re:ID? Bullshit. by DaCool42 · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian who lives near the border, I haven't seen a US border officer do that in at least 10 years. Everytime I've crossed recently, I've been grilled, my ID checked again and again, any bags had to be carried through and scanned...

      --

      ----
      All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
  177. Actually, it's not interstate... by Jadecristal · · Score: 1

    Visiting the People's Democratic Republic of New York is, in fact, leaving the USA. As such, passports make more sense.

    With less sarcasm, the situation really is heading towards quite-out-of-hand.

  178. De paperz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your paperz! Show me ze paperz! (say it with a German accent. You'll get it.)

  179. Re:Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Mas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Oh good! Another Nazi inference. You must be proud and feel like you have made a strike against the Power.

    What a fucking dumbass!

  180. yro? by bano · · Score: 1

    This is not "your rights online"
    It's "your rights in real fucking life"
    This is not news for nerds, it should not be on fucking slashdot.

  181. dear god by ronchie02 · · Score: 1

    Could the most of you get any fucking stupider? It's a bloody passport. Welcome to what most of the rest of the world does. It's not like they're going to fucking strip search you or something.

    "Hi!"
    "Hi. Citizenship?"
    "US *show passport*"
    "Why are you coming here, for how long, and are you carrying anything?"
    "Visit friends, just a few hours, no."
    "Have a nice stay!"

    Good fucking god, the only difference is you have to show them a 2 in by 4 in by 3 mm booklet. HEAVEN FORBID. God sakes people, you act like they just told you you could never leave the county without being strip searches and have your dick photographed or something.

    Evaluate your fucking priorities. I'm not for the Patroit Act or hell, even Bush, but I'm not as stupid as to think having to show ID is that awful. Perhaps if you morons left your house you'd see that compared to almost any other border, the Canadian border and entering and exiting that country is 5000x times easier then traveling to most other places. I mean, hell, ofen times you already have to show a driver's licesne anyways. OH NO, ID! EVIL!

  182. Uhhhh ... by hotspotbloc · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Americans who crossed freely into Canada will be unable to return to the United States [from Canada] without a passport.

    Shut out from the US and stuck in Canada? I fail to see the downside here. I mean between the high quality beer and weed plus "Hockey Night in Canada" and "The Nature of Things" I'm thinking about retiring there. =)

    --
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
  183. Make what easier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I show them my DL and BC, they ask me a couple of questions and I'm on my way. How much easier will a passport make it? This is crazy. If you can't trust canada, who the hell can you trust!?

  184. Just get deported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think if you try to get a job in Canada, and they find out you are not Canadian, that you will be deported back to your country of orgin. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

  185. Re:Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Mas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as they have proper documentation and identification.

    If only it was just that. As a male born in Iran (long-time Canadian citizen), I have (had) a hard time going into USA after 9/11, i.e. the first question they ask me every time is: "where were you born?" and half the time stop me at the border regardless of my proper documentation. I'm not the only one with this problem, and this is not a troll just real facts.

    I've given up going there now, and I know many non-whites (Middle-Eastern, East-Asians, etc) who have also stopped trying to visit USA because of the not-so-veiled racism.

  186. could just make it 10 years - 5 years is too short by markdowling · · Score: 1

    my Irish one expires 2011. Cost about C$110 though.

  187. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by joebok · · Score: 1

    Consistent rules can be good - but there could also be a false sense of security associated with such actions. This is the arguement against the various airline lists that allow certain people/profiles to go through while concentrating resources on people on the "bad" list.

    They would catch more would-be offenders by using random checks on everybody rather than detaining the people with no passports.

  188. Finally. by TheClam · · Score: 1

    That is all.

  189. GP got it right by Compact+Dick · · Score: 1

    To the south of the US, you have Mexico, not Canada.

    I shall refrain from passing a snide comment on your geographic knowledge.

    *snigger*

    1. Re:GP got it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a dipshit. The grandparent said *nothing* about the geography, only that "canada crossing into america" was backwards because the Canadian currency was weak against the dollar.

      It was a joke on the joke, moron.

      Take your superior snigger and shove it up your ass, Dick.

    2. Re:GP got it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually. He mentioned no defence of America being backwards due to currency, rather he stated it is your culture that was backwards.

      Let me help you out... It's backwards in a cultural sense like taking a time machine back to visit cavemen, or stopping by and feeding the apes at the zoo.

      Cheers.

  190. Freedom by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    At least we Americans will still enjoy the largest amount of freedom 'in' the US. No one will be asking for our papers when we travel. In your face, facist Canada!

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  191. Texan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The one and only time I travelled to Canada, the Canadian border guy asked what nationality I was.

    I replied "Texan".

    He asked, "You mean American, eh?".

    I responded, "Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that the rest of the USA is in Texas too."

  192. So many grandmothers stranded in Canada by cthulhuology · · Score: 1

    I live in Buffalo, and Erie county has one of the highest percentage population over 65 of any county in the country. Now many of us cross the border on a regular basis. Rowing, doughnuts, french fries, chinese food, highschool kids go drinking, summer homes, etc. Our old people go shopping (cheaper Ice Cream other side of the border). It will be utterly hilarious when there's hundereds of senior citizens crossing into cananda forgetting their passports (as most American don't have them in the first place). And then getting stranded in Canada. I for one may just "forget" my passport and not come back. Not that it matters, since you can always hop in a motor boat, kayak, or dare I say it SWIM! You're supposed to check in with customs, but no one ever does.

  193. You mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean Arizona and California are still part of America? As in the Unites States of America? Or just North America?

    You obviously don't live in one of these states, do you?

    1. Re:You mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You mean Arizona and California are still part of America? As in the Unites States of America?

      For now. Not for long.

  194. Fascinating by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's fascinating to read all the comments from people who think that the US is fascist for requiring some sort of ID before letting people in.

    As a US citizen, I am expected to honor the border crossing requirements of all the countries I travel to, including planning ahead for those that require a visa. I'm expected to put up with the nonsense of an Australian customs inspector who wanted to fine me for bringing Australian-produced chocolate back into Australia after a two day side-trip to New Zealand. I'm expected to leave my passport with the train conductor when I travel cross-continent in Europe (can anyone else say "identity theft"?)

    So now the US wants to have visitors here produce some ID to show they belong, just like all the countries I visit have demanded from me. "Its an insult to Canadians!" Oh, please. If you don't want to come here, stay home. And if you are a US citizen who travels out of country, get a passport. Problem solved.

    1. Re:Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      no offence, but something like 85% of Canada's population lives within 100 miles of US border (google it). Make more sense now why people are pissed off?


      If America gets nuked, Canada gets the fallout. We can all pretend we live on islands, but we don't....

    2. Re:Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm expected to leave my passport with the train conductor when I travel cross-continent in Europe (can anyone else say "identity theft"?) No you're not. Can anyone else say "service"? Of course if you'd rather be woken in the middle of the night for a chat with the border guards then you're more than welcome. Wake me at breakfast time!

  195. Why is this a big deal? by westcoastfella · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not sure why people think having to carry a passport to leave the country is a big deal. I'm Canadian, and I've never even thought of leaving the country without a passport, it is the only proof you have of where you're from and where you are legally allowed to be. People have no problem shelling out $70 every 5 years for their drivers licenses in order to drive a car, how is this different?

    1. Re:Why is this a big deal? by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Because it isn't $70 everywhere ($25 here, 4 years), and why the hell would I want to pay however much a passport costs just to go to Canada and get drunk every once in a great great while (i'm 18) when my DL already proves where I'm from?

  196. Even the passport office doesn't believe that! =) by Rikardon · · Score: 2, Funny

    True story: last year I lost my (Canadian) passport and had to get a replacement in a hurry because I was going overseas. I chose to pick the passport up at the local passport office because I could be sure to get it in ten days. Mailing it (the usual procedure) would have introduced an uncertain delay I wasn't willing to risk.

    When I showed up at the passport office with my barcode receipt, the girl behind the counter scanned the barcode and then went and retrieved my passport.

    And then she said: "I'll need to see some ID."

    I swear, I Am Not Making This Up.

    Her: "I'll need to see some ID."

    Me, flabbergasted: "Er... I thought that was the id."

    Her, with a warning tone in her voice: "Well, this is a travel document, but in order to release it to you I have to see some ID."

    Me, getting snarky: "Well, you know, I thought you could open the passport, look at the picture, look at my face and say 'Hey, that's the guy!' You know -- like you expect border control at every other country in the world to do?"

    Her, chilly as the Arctic: "That's as may be, but I'll still need to see some ID."

    Me, exasperated: "All right, but what does it say that you trust the Alberta Driver's License security process more than your own?"

    I still haven't gotten over that one. =)

  197. No thanks by bjprice · · Score: 1
    The tougher new rules still allow Canadians to cross without being fingerprinted, but every person from any other country will be required to submit to fingerprinting.

    This Brit will find somewhere else to take his tourist money then.

    Honestly, the US economy is dying on its arse as it is - I'm surprised they're even bothering to invent new ways of stopping people bringing dollars to America...

    --
    v4sw6HPU$hw5ln6pr5$ck4ma8u7LMO$w2m6l7DL$i2e3t4MWb9AHKMRTen5a29s0r1p-5.88/-8.36g5CST
    1. Re:No thanks by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Like you can see the Grand Canyon, or the Liberty Bell in France.

    2. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't see the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia, either, at least not without spending longer in security than you did at the airport to get there. And god forbid you have to pee once you get inside.

  198. Two words by chronos82 · · Score: 1

    Papers, citizen.

  199. How do you think we feel? by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful
    .. or for that matter have anything to do with americans.. which is a shame really.

    Excuse me, but how do you think we feel about it? Any Americans with two neurons left to rub together to make a spark is saddened by the souring of our relationship with you. And not just you but just about every other country on the planet.

    How would you like to be saddled with George Bush and have 52% of your fellows think he's just a great guy? And then try to blame you for their vote because you didn't come up with a better candidate. Try it for a while and see how it feels.

    We're watching a country we love descend into ignorance, intolerance and fear.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:How do you think we feel? by Rallion · · Score: 1

      Any Americans with two neurons left to rub together to make a spark is saddened by the souring of our relationship with you.

      It's true, and that's almost fully half of us!

      Honestly, 'saddened' is the only word I can think of that fits how I feel about this country. Whenever I think about it I just...sort of...sag. I frown a bit, my back hunches, and I regret, due to my age, having missed the days when American pride and awareness of America's situation weren't mutually exclusive.

  200. More interesting.. by xtal · · Score: 1

    Is that you felt you had to post that anonymously.

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:More interesting.. by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      Maybe he doesn't have a /. account? Believe it or not, lots of people read this site but don't normally comment, and therefore do not have accounts.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    2. Re:More interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how not many people on this whole command thread have accounts.

  201. leave the idealism at home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You still have to choose amongst the government systems actually in use.

    Idealistic nonsense about both democracy and communism are bad is just that - nonsense.

  202. Your papers, comrade? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't be too long before interstate travel in the US requires a passport. That'll finally put an end to criminals moving to another state to hide from the law.

    And we all know that's a double plus good thing, right, comrade?

    Back in the USSR ...

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  203. Lectured by Canadian Immigration by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

    A few years ago I drove an hour to niagara falls to go wine tasting across the border with some friends.

    Since I originated in Maine, and have lived near the border all my life, on at least a dozen prior occasions I've crossed with no problem, sometimes asked for ID, sometimes just waved through.

    (I am a young unthreatening looking geeky white male)

    So this time I rolled up to the window, and when he asked for ID I handed him the driver's licenses of those in the car.

    He asked for my passport, a first. I hadn't bothered to bring it. He then proceeded to lecture me for 15 minutes on how gracious the Canadian government was that I had the opportunity to visit them, and that in no way it should be considered a right to enter the country.

    Never mind the 1.5 miles of bumper to bumper traffic behind me of tourists, like myself. They had to wait as he explained.

    So shocked was I as being treated like a criminal, that I instinctly laughed nervously, never having been interrogated like this.

    'You think this is funny???' he yelled like an inept schooteacher, and I had to use every inch of willpower not to tell him to fuck off since I had just sat in traffic for an hour to reach the border.

    He warned me if I ever approached the border again without a passport, they'd for sure send me home.

    I went back to Canada a few months later, with passport at hand, and got waved through without so much as a glance at my driver's license...

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  204. It's too bad that one town is cut in half by Joe123456 · · Score: 0

    by the border.

  205. Re: not really by Impeesa · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's so busy with tourists during your summer month.

    All you pansies near the border can STFU. Farther north, we're lucky if summer falls on a weekend. :/

  206. Economic losses in consequence by Richard_J_N · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Personally, as a British citizen (and one involved in the fight against ID cards here), I resent the prospect of being fingerprinted, and treated like a common criminal, so much that I will not travel to the USA. I have nothing to hide, but I know that once fingerprints are on record, they will never be deleted, and I value my privacy. As a consequence, our family has not holidayed in the USA since, and this will cost the USA $10,000+ in lost income over a few years. Hopefully, the Democrats will change the policy back when GWB is finally kicked out.

    What happened to the USA? It was a free country with ideals, and now it is becoming a tyranny.

    1. Re:Economic losses in consequence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that mean that the Conservatives will change the UK's oppressive gun laws back when Blair is finally kicked out, so that law-abiding American gun owners who would like to have a hunting holiday in rural England or Scotland can once again do so?

      Didn't think so.

      I note by the way that people in London are now 6 times as likely to be mugged as they are in New York City; that violent crime in the UK is now far higher than the US; and that recently a 105 year old lady in Islington died from being traumatized after being repeatedly targeted by home invaders.

      Great country, you got there.

    2. Re:Economic losses in consequence by dosguru · · Score: 1

      And this is coming from a person in the country with the most CCTV monitoring in the world. Instead of complaining about us perhaps you should look at Big Brother watching you all the time.

      GWB isn't going to be kicked out, his term will expire. We have a written constitution. We have elections on fixed dates, not whenever the Queen consents to them. The democrats couldn't even beat a right-center president with a 50% approval rating, what makes you think they could win against the current crop of more popular moderate republicans starting to campaign.

      Also with privacy, at least my heath records aren't kept by a government agency.

      We arn't perfect over here, but I'm tired of eletist europeans telling us how much better they are.

    3. Re:Economic losses in consequence by cybrthng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Guess you don't watch the news here.. we have kids taking guns from police officers to school and killing dozens of people.

      We have people who tape over there mouths to protest someones dying wish

      we have people who think there is such thing as "conservative" and "moderate republican" still.

      We have people who think freedom is guns and freedom is fear and the really sad part is people preferr that.

      I'd take a little bit of english heritage anyday over the biggotry of GWB's administration

    4. Re:Economic losses in consequence by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

      >>
      What happened to the USA? It was a free country with ideals, and now it is becoming a tyranny.

      Come on folks. You can disagree with the policy and all. But do we really have so little perspective that we honestly think that requiring official government identification to enter the U.S. can be considered 'tyranny?'

      This is almost as bad as the uninformed, uneducated folks who call Bush a fascists. It is a huge disservice to those who suffered under real fascism and tyranny.

      I can understand the hyperbole (I'm hardly a George W. fan); but when you resort to this sort of thing it just discredits your point.

      I suppose in an effort to call the glass half full, it would seem that things are not REALLY that bad if the modern definition of 'tyranny' is requiring passports at the border.

      --
      - dj
    5. Re:Economic losses in consequence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There was a case where a crime was commited in the UK. They had a finger print of the criminal from the scene of the crime. They searched their database and up popped a local suspect. He went to jail, lost his house and freedom. Only problem was HE DID NOT DO IT.

      The moment you are on the finger database you open yourself up to the possibility of being mistakenly considered a Terrorist. (And that is really bad as you tend to be guilty unless proven innocent.)

      As I understand no two fingerprints are the same. Even from the same finger. Therefore it is up to interpretation as to whether the finger prints match.

      Anyone remember the book 1984? Was it just 30 years ahead of it's time?

    6. Re:Economic losses in consequence by cranos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Calling Bush a Fascist does no disservice to those who suffered under Franco, Mussolini or Hitler, just because Bush has not gone to the extremese as the above mentioned dictators does not mean he is not a fascist. It just means he's not a freakin' psycho who happens to control a nation.

      With a lot of the so called "Anti-Terrorist" legislation Bush and the Neo-Cons (gotta love the name) you can see an underlying thread of low level fascism, from the ability to detain without due process "For the Good Of The Nation" to the idea that America is and should be the One True Leader.

    7. Re:Economic losses in consequence by Richard_J_N · · Score: 1

      No offense intended - I never claimed that we are any better! Fortunately, the ID card bill seems to be on its way out, but I agree about the dreadfulness of CCTV, and how pervasive it has become. That's one thing which you are still fortunate about.

      However, I disagree about the records - in Europe, we do have some fairly decent data protection rules which, despite problems do often do what they are meant to.

      [I think you've probably overstated the significance of the Royal Assent to Elections; it's a historical convention, nothing more.]

    8. Re:Economic losses in consequence by Richard_J_N · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but it is on the way. For example, * Guantanamo and detention without trial. * Stupid, bureaucratic "security" regulations. * Pervasive requirements for identity documents when travelling or in finance. * IP "colonisation" and the destruction of the public domain by large corporates. * Politicians who take advantage of a frightened populace. * Widespread surveillance of communications; what privacy the government does not invade is invaded by the likes of choicepoint. * Official xenophobia to the extent that even your allies are discouraged from travelling to the USA. Several of these are indeed tyrannical, to the extent that the founding fathers used that word. Incidentally, I like the USA, have visited many times before, I believe in the founding ideals of the USA (which the government seems to have abandoned), and I supported the Iraq war. Needless to say, we in Europe have many of the same problems. However, I believe that the USA has badly lost its way, and has slipped from the moral high-ground. I am saddened to see this.

    9. Re:Economic losses in consequence by Archimboldo · · Score: 1
      What happened to the USA?

      We've become a target. Not really sure what to do about it.

      I understand your frustration, but until an airplane comes crashing into Parliament or you lose 3000 lives, I don't know that you can fully appreciate our situation.

      Part of becoming a target is the result of our greed and arrogance, but at least an equal part is simply from mindless group-think: "America is the cause of all our problems." Very convenient for dictorships who ruin their people to find an external blame. Very convenient for prosperous countries who don't want to rock the boat and who pay little more than lip service to their high sounding words.

      America has been arrogant, but also generous - both in the public and private sector, long before charity came under the world microscope.

      I'm no GW Bush fan, but I don't think he's a "Hitler", or "the biggest terrorist in the world" as some people love to shout. He's just a well meaning simpleton, with reasonable aims but poor execution.

    10. Re:Economic losses in consequence by Qrlx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't be a dipshit. England has seen her share of terrorism from the IRA. Bombs rocked the streets of London for decades.

      If you think Bush is a simpleton, you have (mis)underestimated him at your peril.

      Then again if you think his policies, which include

      - diverting bilions of public money to private corporations under the guise of social security reform (hey, it's an ownership society. It's just not owned by you)

      - fingerprinting and photographing all non-citizens at the border

      - sending prisoners abroad to be tortured far away from the reach of US law (to fight against those who might terrorize us)

      - keeping citizens in jail indefinitely with no charges filed and no access to a lawyer (we had to destroy the Constitution in order to save it)

      - alighing with military dictatorships like Pakistan (in the name of Democracy, of course)

      are "reasonable" then we clearly have different views on how the United States ought to behave.

    11. Re:Economic losses in consequence by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      How does the fact that your health care records are held by a variety of private corporations make them more secure than if they were held by a government agency?

      You realize you don't even have rights to that information? It's their property, not yours. You call that privacy? You're a commodity.

      I'll take a bumbling inefficient bureaucracy over a cutthroat profit-hungry corporation in which shareholders come first and everything else comes last. So would most of the planet as it turns out.

      By the way, the best thing to do is to just maintain your own medical records. That way you don't have to trust the government or the corporations.

    12. Re:Economic losses in consequence by Richard_J_N · · Score: 1

      This is the point. 911 was tragic, dreadfully so. But the response has been completely wrong for several reasons:

      1) 3000 lives is a tragic loss, but it is far less than died fighting in, say WW2 to save our freedoms. We should not give up our freedoms so lightly. It seems to me that, if those 3000 died to maintain freedom, it was not in vain; but if their own government gives up on what they believed in, their deaths were all the more tragic, since the terrorists have won.

      2) Over the last 10 years, more people have been killed by lightening than by terrorism. The current state of panic is unjustified, yet a scared population will give away its rights too easily. (Think Germany in 1933 and the "Enabling Law".)

      3)It wouldn't be quite so bad if the "antiterror measures" actually made any difference to the real risk. They may reduce "perceived risk", but if anything, the real risk is increased.

      4)I strongly believe that the USA should aim to be a beacon of democracy and freedom, and that the rest of the world should seek to emulate this. That, in the end, is the only way to obtain peace.

      [My view is that the USA's foreign policy response to 911 was basically correct (i.e invade Afghanistan, scare Syria/Iran...), albeit that the execution was not quite perfect. However, the domestic response should have been to do *nothing*. At the moment, the US at home is doing all the terrorists could have dreamed of. You go about in fear, your systems are inefficient and more expensive because of "security", and you have given up many of your liberties. And my government is copying this.]

    13. Re:Economic losses in consequence by zsau · · Score: 1

      America is no longer and democracy. It has too many people; no-one has any say any more, except the people in power and the opposition. (The US isn't the only country that suffers from this; even Australia with its megre 20 million is too big a country.) This wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the centralisation of power in the US as in Australia, which would mean there's a lot of smaller countries in which people can have a say.

      --
      Look out!
    14. Re:Economic losses in consequence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Guess you don't watch the news here.. we have kids taking guns from police officers to school and killing dozens of people.
      And in other countries, we have them doing it with homemade bombs.
      We have people who tape over there mouths to protest someones dying wish
      Taping over the victim's mouths?
      we have people who think there is such thing as "conservative" and "moderate republican" still. We have people who think freedom is guns and freedom is fear and the really sad part is people preferr that.
      Do you know why freedom involves guns?

      If your (and my) government starts being evil, you get to shoot at it.
      I'd take a little bit of english heritage anyday over the biggotry of GWB's administration
      You don't like it, vote.
    15. Re:Economic losses in consequence by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Do you know why freedom involves guns?

      Yes. Point a gun at someone, they lose all their freedom.

    16. Re:Economic losses in consequence by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      I understand your frustration, but until an airplane comes crashing into Parliament or you lose 3000 lives, I don't know that you can fully appreciate our situation.

      Oh, groan, go away. Your country has killed over 15,000 innocent people in Iraq in the past couple of years. What makes your 3,000 worth more?

      generous - both in the public and private sector, long before charity came under the world microscope.

      America contributes very little to charity, proof here. However, your state department considers loans to be charity for some fucked-up reason; the rest of the world is trying to stop rich countries lending money to corrupt governments as it's the people who pay and the money gets squandered. Google for "third world debt".

    17. Re:Economic losses in consequence by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      I understand your frustration, but until an airplane comes crashing into Parliament or you lose 3000 lives, I don't know that you can fully appreciate our situation.

      You're an ignorant fool, and that's being polite.

      We Brits have suffered terrorism for decades - some of it sponsored by communities of the US. I myself have had a friend injured in an IRA bombing, I have heard a bomb go off in the distance, and I have had to live with the threat of an attack since I was old enough to decide to leave home and go live in London, over 20 years ago.

      That, my friend, means I can do more than fully appreciate your situation. I can say we've been there before you, even when our protests fell on deaf ears.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    18. Re:Economic losses in consequence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well ok but wait and see if hilary gets elected .... i`m sure she`ll have a few wild, hair brained schemes of her own. like a global village (politically correct way of meaning world government)

    19. Re:Economic losses in consequence by tengwar · · Score: 1
      We have a written constitution. We have elections on fixed dates, not whenever the Queen consents to them

      We have constitutional law (you will have heard of the Magna Carta, for instance). Just because there is no single document marked "Constitution" doesn't mean there isn't a written constitution.

      As to the fixed dates of elections - so what? There is a maximum period that a government can sit, so is there any major problem with allowing the Prime Minister to call an early election? I am sure you know that the Queen does not decide the date.

    20. Re:Economic losses in consequence by Archimboldo · · Score: 1
      Oh, groan, go away. Your country has killed over 15,000 innocent people in Iraq in the past couple of years. What makes your 3,000 worth more?

      We did not target innocent people. The terrorists you seem to want to defend did. Where was your sympathy when 300,000 Iraqi's died under Saddam and you did absolutely nothing to stop them? It is easy to look good when you do nothing and criticize the mistakes of others. But is harder to make sacrifices that are unpopular to bring about changes from the "miserable ease" of the status quo.

      America contributes very little to charity, proof here

      Do you even read the sources you post? The "charity" you post is a narrow slice of all charities, as the article itself says in its disclaimer:

      ODA is defined as financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. The entry does not cover other official flows (OOF) or private flows.

      According to Giving U.S.A.'s annual report, published by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel (AAFRC), Americans gave an estimated $240.92 billion to charity in 2002. Even more surprising, Giving U.S.A. reports that, in a year that was very hard on the corporate bottom line, charitable contributions by corporations and corporate foundations came in at $12.19 billion, an 8.8% increase over the previous year. The fact that charitable giving remains so high even while economic growth is so low runs counter to the arguments of many who advocate statist models of charity

      I don't know what the GDP of the US is now, is it about a trillion dollars? That makes it bout $0.25 per dollar.

      Now as to the general tone of your post, you seem blindly partisan, selective in your facts, and rather belligerant.

    21. Re:Economic losses in consequence by tengwar · · Score: 1

      Ditto. I have also had people from companies I work with come over from the US for the same reason (i.e. my privacy, not a wish to be spiteful). This costs c. $15k in lost productivity at their end, plus flights, on each occasion.

    22. Re:Economic losses in consequence by Archimboldo · · Score: 1
      You're an ignorant fool, and that's being polite.

      Thanks for being so polite.

      We Brits have suffered terrorism for decades - some of it sponsored by communities of the US. I myself have had a friend injured in an IRA bombing, I have heard a bomb go off in the distance, and I have had to live with the threat of an attack since I was old enough to decide to leave home and go live in London, over 20 years ago.

      I'm sorry about your friend. But let me ask you, do you take security more seriously now? Also, I don't think you can compare a few isolated murders by your own people (if you regard them as your own people) to an attack killing 3000 using airplanes. BTW, sorry for my American ignorance about how many have died as the result of the IRA, but from the distance past, I recall it being much, much smaller than 3000.

      You seem to imply that the US officially sponsors the IRA. Of course, this isn't true, or is it your intention to exaggerate and shout to make your point?

      If you combine just criticism with an attitude of understanding, people will listen to you more. As it is you come across as someone with an angry, unreasoning axe to grind.

    23. Re:Economic losses in consequence by gfreeman · · Score: 1
      If you combine just criticism with an attitude of understanding, people will listen to you
      more


      My point exactly - you're failing to understand that terrorism didn't start on 11th September 2001.

      how many have died as the result of the IRA, but from the distance past, I recall it being much, much smaller than 3000.

      Out of interest, from where do you recall these numbers?

      Exact figures for the number of murders commited by the IRA are of course impossible to determine. I'd say they'd be knocking on the door of a couple of thousand. Try looking at answers.com (and elsewhere) for some more info before saying that we have no idea what you are going through. You also have to understand that the IRA are in no way our own people.

      do you take security more seriously now?

      Only where it comes to flying is it noticeable. You still get the same number of coppers on the street, if that's what you mean. The real worrying aspect is the freedom-curbing powers the govt introduce as a result of the UK being a staunch US ally - and therefore a more likely target.

      You seem to imply that the US officially sponsors the IRA.

      I implied no such thing. I you wish to infer from my statement that the US officially sponsors the IRA, then that's down to you. It's not what I said, not what I meant, and not what reflects reality. In reality, until the WTC twin towers came down, the US govt was particularly unconcerned about cracking down on any Noraid fundraising.

      A couple of years ago, I saw a posting on a msgboard that I snipped and saved:
      Let's suppose the UK were host to an organisation called "Inaid" that was funding a terrorist group called the "INA" which was blowing up soldiers and civilians in the US. Let us also suppose "Inaid" had substantial popular support in the UK and our Government did nothing to close it down or even to discourage it. How long do you think it would be before the UK was put on Dubya Bush's list of "nations that continue to harbor or support terrorism"?
      OK so it's out of context here, and I can't remember where I got it from, but this wasn't too long after the 11th Sept attacks, and someone was trying to correct an American who was claiming that terrorism had been born that day.

      I'm sorry about your friend.

      Thanks.
      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    24. Re:Economic losses in consequence by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      We did not target innocent people. The terrorists you seem to want to defend did.

      First, off, I'm not defending them. Just playing the interested third-party. War is no different from terrorism. Sure, you can pretend that doublethink phrases like "smart bomb" and "collateral damage" mean that innocent casualties will be minimal, but they won't. War is brutal, and the Iraqi one is one of the worst. You can NEVER claim the moral high ground when you start a war. It doesn't matter which target's in your gunsight, the school, the hospital, the drug factory, or the enemy training camp. When you choose war, you accept the concequences. Ergo, the USA is no better than the terrorists.

      The 15,000 figure only exists because of the Geneva Convention, which states that you MUST cound non-combatant deaths. If it weren't for that, I absolutely guarantee that we'd all have the impression that the innocent casualties were low. Not once have I ever heard the number mentioned on mainstream media.

      Oh, and even if there was WMD in Iraq or links to 9-11, I'd still feel the same way.

      Where was your sympathy when 300,000 Iraqi's died under Saddam and you did absolutely nothing to stop them?

      Where was Donald Runsfeld? That's right, selling them the capability to conduct those slaughters. Personally, I'd have been in school myself at that time, making pictures out of macaroni and the like. Nowadays, I do stand up when I hear of injustice, like now.

      WRT to charities, well stats are stats. My link to that page was meerly to illustrate to someone that the US wasn't the worlds most charitable nation. And I stand by on the comment about loans not being aid, your "Giving USA" group will likely be doing the same.

      Please don't take me the wrong way. I used to love America. I still like the American people. However, your country is heading down a dark road that threatens us all. I'll do what I can to stop that, and if that means bitch-slapping some reality into someone, I hope you or they don't take it personally. The fundamental problem is that most Americans, having grown up around strong nationalistic propaganda, have a genuine belief that their country can do no wrong. The biggest question after 9-11 was "why do they hate us". I attempt to answer that in the hope that they will realise that their leaders are taking the good currency that was The American Dream, and pissing it up the river.

      You need to step back from Hollywood and read some History. There are reasons people want to fly planes into buildings. I'd be calling for the blood of those who gave them that reason, but that would break away the "they hate freedom" mantra that has been so successful at keeping the citizenry in line.

    25. Re:Economic losses in consequence by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

      Once again. You show a lack of understanding of what Facism was/is.

      It's an economic theory that allows the government to control private industry and tell it what it should make and how many of the product to produce.

      Bush would be nearly the opposite of a fascist. He thinks government has no place telling industry and business what to do -- even if it means screwing workers. Now that doesn't mean I like Bush. Frankly, I really wish the Democratic party could get it through it's collective heads that they can't win national elections with ultra liberal northern democrat candidates. That formula hasn't since 1960 -- the last time a northern Democrat won the presidency.

      Unfortunately, most people make the mistake of confusing facism with national socialism. They're completely separate things.

      --
      - dj
    26. Re:Economic losses in consequence by Archimboldo · · Score: 1
      My point exactly - you're failing to understand that terrorism didn't start on 11th September 2001.

      Both Mohammad Atta and the IRA are terrorists. I'm not disputing the fact that the UK has experienced terrorism - years before the US has. I'm drawing a distinction between the kinds of terrorism, the kinds of threats the terrorists present, and how to best counter those threats. Both IRA killings and the WTC killings are atrocious, but in the context of preventative measures they're apples and oranges.

      If an airplane from an outside country who hated the UK's guts struck its Parliament building, you would probably think, "My God, what can I do to prevent a replay?" You can argue about the best way to do it, but my guess is that you'd have a very understandable paranoia about unknown foreigners entering your country.

      It's not politically correct and sounds bad to say it, but I'd be all for just checking people who "look" suspicious. Yes, it's error prone, but better than making everyone pay for the actions of a few. Kind of like what people would do if some scrappy bearded Middle-Easterner was walking through their neighborhood - one which he usually doesn't frequent. And this only after experiencing shootings by predominantly Arab strangers. Yeah, I know how it sounds, and I'm not saying all Arabs are terrorists. Honestly, though, if people in the UK found that 2% of Americans walked away from a pub without paying versus 0.01% of everyone else, I'd say "Hey, just check American's pockets. Just release the innocent majority." I'd probably grumble about it. (Somebody smack me for saying this.)

      Your concern about the misuse of fingerprints is certainly worth considering. My comment was meant "de-Satanize" (couldn't think of a better word) the motives for the extra passport scrutiny.

      Out of interest, from where do you recall these numbers?

      I don't really recall. I think I was scanning a BBC background article on the conflict. Something like hundreds rather than thousands has lodged in my dim memory. But I'll accept your numbers.

      The real worrying aspect is the freedom-curbing powers the govt introduce as a result of the UK being a staunch US ally - and therefore a more likely target.

      Freedom-curbing measures aren't themselves the worry to me - we all give up freedoms for the common good. It's the potential misuse of some powers. Actually, I am sympathetic to your criticism about fingerprinting.

      Your remark about being a target bears on my other comment. I think that some people aren't opposed to terrorist counter-measures per se, but adopt that pose because they want someone else to handle it and someone else to be the target of unreasoning hatred for an unpopular expedient solution.

      I got a little afield from the original topic, but hey, I have a dislike for the typical dissimulation that goes on in diplomatic circles: Say what's pleasing, act another way, and pretend you and you alone are made of 100% pure gold. We all deal with the same problems and the same interests.

    27. Re:Economic losses in consequence by cranos · · Score: 1

      You might want to rethink your definition of Facism.

    28. Re:Economic losses in consequence by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

      Well, I happen to have a masters degree in political science. i don't exactly need to consult a web dictionary to know the definition of facism.

      --
      - dj
    29. Re:Economic losses in consequence by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

      I just checked your web dictionary definition. The definition is vague, at best. It wouldn't rate a D in a college freshmen political science test.

      It tries to define it as any political movement or stance resembling Mussolini's. Well, what exactly is that? (It doesn't say)

      If you go back to my original post, that WAS Mussolini's position. There are entires political science papers devoted to showing how Mussolini hated Hitler's racial/ethnic policies. As the weaker partner in their alliance, he went along with it. But it had nothing to do with his core views. He's actually quoted as saying Hitler was an idiot.

      What exactly is the meaning of "right-wing?"

      Once again, the popular usage of the term is far different than what was meant to be right-wing then. Based on today's standards, John F. Kennedy would be 'right-wing.'

      Kennedy was a cold-warrior who single handedly built up America's Special Operations units. (If you don't believe me, take a trip to Ft. Bragg, Carolina and look at all the Army Special Forces buildings named after him. Heck, the Headquarters of American Special Forces is "The John F. Kennedy Special Operations Center."

      >>Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. The word fascism (uncapitalized) has come to mean any political stance or system of government resembling Mussolini's, as further discussed below.

      --
      - dj
  207. Intolerable by omb · · Score: 1
    Quite apart from clearly ultra vires decisions like preventing American Citizens to re-enter their own country,

    And the technological stupidity of adding un-encrypted RFID tags to passports, "to make it easier for third world goverments" that will be able to find a RFID reader, but not a lap-top PC, leading to a world market in Faraday Passort Covers, undoubtably a new export opportunity for China,

    I wonder how long it will take these insular beaurocrats to understand that the rest of the world won't stand for it!

    I look fondly forward to returning to Switzerland to see a VERY long line of US Citizens waiting to be fingerprinted by a single Polizstin doing her job, slowly, very carefully and with Swiss precision.

  208. This is the first step. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Next, you will need to produce your passport to re-enter Cincinatti from Newark.

    "I don't care. It only affects those who have something to hide."

    Welcome to Soviet America. Please produce your papers.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  209. Obligatory by bigberk · · Score: 1

    According to this, you're not even a member of these United States. Which makes you, A COMMUNIST!!!

  210. The State Department is panning for gold. by Assassin+bug · · Score: 1

    Well, I suppose the State Department http://www.state.gov/ is needing to boost their income. Interesting how terror has created new funding opportunities.

  211. Re: not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the USA is so busy with Americans all year long.

  212. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As an American, I have to ask ... just what did our Northern friends do to deserve this? Oh, I forgot: it's to stop terrorists. Sure. But after we have four or five years of this additional foolishness behind us, I'll wager that not a single terrorist will have been apprehended or kept from entering the U.S. Probably it will work about as well as England's fetish with video cameras.

  213. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

    Also reminds me of the old "security" at airports pre-9/11, when they would ask everyone if they packed their own luggage and if they were with their bags the entire time. What kind of moron terrorist would say no?

  214. Transit visas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Parent is right. As an international student with an Indian passport I travel twice a year from Toronto to Bangalore which amounts to spending about $3000-$4000 becuase i always travel during peak tourist times which are summer holidays and Christmas.

    Tickets from New York to Bangalore would garner savings on the order of $500-$800, but I'd rather not travel through a country that requires me to have a transit bloody visa simply becuase I'm going to be in their airport lounge for about ~3 hours between flights. Moreover having an Indian passport requires me to go through an Interview at the American Consulate in Toronto just for the Transit visa!(scheduling an interview takes about 3-4weeks during busy seasons)

    It's lunacy/paranoia like this that has compelled me to avoid even holidaying in the US in the 3 years that I've been in Canada.

  215. Thanks for speaking up by tentimestwenty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm glad you took the time to write the response you did. It is very rare to hear from Americans who dislike the direction their country has taken. Because of the massive amount of words and action from the other 52% of your fellows, it is damn near impossible not to generalize or write-off the whole country.

    1. Re:Thanks for speaking up by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      It is very rare to hear from Americans who dislike the direction their country has taken.

      Haven't been reading /. long, have you? The overwhelming majority of American /.'ers think GW Bush is the antiChrist.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  216. Nothing to see here, please move on... by b!arg · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually I believe there were at least a couple of occassions that terrorists tried to enter the U.S. across the Canadian-U.S. border. Ahmed Ressam was probably the most noteworthy.

    I didn't know this issue was a big deal. In fact I thought it was already a done deal. Last time I went to Canada from Seattle the border agent told me that my Driver's License was not "adequate ID" to enter Canada and I may not be able to re-enter the U.S. This was two years ago. Of course the funny thing being right after he told me this he let me go on through. Yes, it was just a warning to get people like me prepared to need to use a passport. So I got one. No big deal. I'm not going to be able to go to Europe, South America, or Asia without one anyway, why not Canada?

    --

    Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
    1. Re:Nothing to see here, please move on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you're white. White people are safe; they're either American or they come from some other free country. Everyone else needs to prove they're white except for the skin colour.

    2. Re:Nothing to see here, please move on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The border gaurd is right, since 9/11 you needed some form of picture ID like a driver lic. and a birth cert. .

      Problem is Birth certificates don't have anything to prevent them from being fraudently duplicated. Though passports are not much better.

  217. CKNW: Passport Rules Make Border Americans Angry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US merchants just south of the border are
    not happy with the Amercian government plan to have all travellers
    carry passports within a few years.

    The passport move could cost money for members of the
    Bellingham-Whatcom Chamber of Commerce.
    President and CEO Ken Oplinger says border issues are already causing
    problems for their businesses.
    With a few years before the land border passport requirement comes
    into place, he hopes they can lobby for changes.

    Note: Many of the Factory Outlet Malls in the U.S. Border Town never recovered from the tighten secure from 9/11

  218. Let me see your papers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have heard that phrase before.

  219. Interesting.. But wrong.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I travel. Not as much as some people, but I do travel an awful lot. In the last 10 years, I've been to 20 different nations on multiple trips. I carry more forms of identification than anyone should rightfully have to carry, even excluding the ID (4 pieces of photo ID) that I have to carry for my job. And I have more trouble geting back into the United States than into any other nation.

    * note: 4 of the 4 pieces of ID I carry for my job include background checks.

  220. Weird borders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think some parts of the US/Canada border are weird? Then consider Baarle:

    It is a Dutch town in the Netherlands. But it is also a Dutch town in Belgium. And a Belgian town in Belgium. And a Belgian town in the Netherlands. And there are even bits of the Dutch town in the Belgian town in the Dutch town.

    In effect, you have the Netherlands surrounded by Belgium surrounded by Belgium bordering on Belgium.

    Confused? Me too.
    http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=4051

  221. Real issue here by Bongo+Bill · · Score: 1
    This isn't about denying anybody the right to travel. This is about enforcing existing laws. People still need to be a citizen of the US to return to the US as a citizen - it's just now, they have to prove it.

    Yes, terrorism might be a part of it. But this is about enforcing existing laws. Is it so much to ask people to provide more proof of citizenship than "Yeah, I'm a citizen" or a driver's license? The law requires proof of citizenship. Using passports to prove citizenship is the best way to do so, in the absence of a national ID card (regardless of whether that's a good thing, it would certainly make the whole situation a bit simpler).

    The government is not being discriminatory here. All it's doing is enforcing its own laws. That's supposed to be a good thing. Due process of law and all that.

    But, this being Slashdot, people will (and, as a matter of fact, did) take this as a terrible infringement on their rights and blamed the Bush administration for taking ridiculous measures to "combat terrorism." People brought up non-arguments like "But passports can be forged." Not as easily as a driver's license or the sentence "Yes, I am a citizen."

    What I want to know is, why aren't they doing this for the southern border?

    --
    ...but is it art?
    1. Re:Real issue here by SlothB77 · · Score: 1

      Illegal entry to this country is so common now, any attempt to possibly stem the tide is scene as fascist.

      But ahh, come on now, all those ILLEGALS entering the United States are upstanding and hardworking people just trying to find work, I mean once they get into the country they are law-abiding if you forget that whole illegal entry thing.

      /sarcasm

      Does it not tell you some important information about a person who is entering this country illegally. People who sneak into this country ILLEGALLY do so for a reason. Perhaps we should control our borders?

      Also lovely is how, if all those passports and ID's are forged why don't we just let everybody in? Umm, perhaps we do something about the forged id's too (that doesn't involve giving up) if we are checking them?

  222. Reciprocity already under review! by mhotchin · · Score: 2, Informative
    From the CBC.

    WASHINGTON - In response to a new rule requiring most Canadians to carry passports for entry into the U.S., Public Security Minister Anne McLellan said Americans may also have to carry the document to enter Canada.

    "Our system has really always worked on the basis of reciprocity," McLellan said outside the House of Commons.

    "And therefore we will review our requirements for American citizens and we're going to do that in collaboration with the United States.

    "There's no point in either of us going off in a direction without working together to determine how best we can facilitate the flow - a free flow - and movement of low-risk individuals."

  223. Duck 'n Dive by Squirrel_King · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I remember being a kid visiting Canada and walking over one of the bridges into NY State. You know, past the doughnut-munching border security guys that seemed so prevalent in those days. Anyway, I was happily scouting around in the American bush looking for stones (telling myself happily over and over that these were *American* stones I was looking at now), when my Dad saw me and almost had apoplexy.

    Needless to say, 21 years later, I now have three passports and regularly travel within and outside of Europe. Things sure have changed since the "auld days". More security. More suspicion. And passports checks at EVERY airport or crossing, no matter if you're an EU citizen or not.

    Y'know, part of me can't help but pine for those days when a foreign kid was able to slip into the States. The worst thing about the whole experience was that I only got offered ONE doughnut by one of the border security guards instead of two or more. If I managed to do the same things nowadays, I'm sure I'd be rectally examined, be screened for radiocative material, be slung into a dark corner somewhere while some idiotic US Senator called me a "jewvinyl turr'st" on the world media and generally wait for six months until the diplomatic shitstorm was over.

    Slowly, but ever so surely, the world is turning into a more unpleasant place. Blame it on maximising shareholder value and short election cycles. Together - along with lawyers / solicitors / whatever-they-call-themselves-the-results-are-the- same - it's the unholy trinity that is ruining the world around us.

    1. Re:Duck 'n Dive by Teancum · · Score: 1

      While I usually dismiss people who talk about the "Good ol' days" as being idiots (they usually are), this situation is very true and a very sad and recent development.

      I don't consider myself to be that ancient (although I did learn to do programming on Apple ]['s... so it has been a little while)

      When I was a Boy Scout I went on a canoe trip in the Boundary Waters area of Northern Minnesota, that also is on the border between Minnesota and western Ontario. A "sister" park run by the provincial government is just to the north of the BWCA, and the group I was with made it all of the way up to the international border.

      Waiting for us there was an absolutely gorgous waterfall (this was a 3-day trip by canoe to get there in the first place... no roads what so ever), and a little shack with a Canadian Mountie standing guard to keep idiot Americans on their side of the border (like myself). No U.S. Border Patrol agents in sight at all, or even park rangers. We chatted a bit with the Mountie, in some ways jealous because he actually got paid to run around in that gorgous wilderness, went about a mile into Canada mainly to say "yup, we made it into Canada", then turned around and went back into U.S. waters. To go further required a permit that we didn't have, otherwise I think we would have kept going at least for a couple of days. No comment about even seeing passports or even driver's licenses. Just the permit to run the canoes and camp equipment in the provincial park.

      Anyway, the experience you had was very similar to what I remember of the international border, and it is too bad that the experience has gone downhill. I wish that crossing an international border between the U.S. and Canada were like crossing city limits in Los Angeles County (only affecting where the taxes go and otherwise nobody even knowing that they exist). I also know too many Canadian ex-pats living here in the USA, and have cousins in Alberta to make too much of a complaint about Canada. My ancestry goes north and south of the border for many generations back. I hope in the future that sort of attitude can be restored to cross to Canada without a passport.

  224. Not so free when I went through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was on leave from the US Army a few years back, while changing duty stations from Ft. Carson, CO to Ft. Drum, NY. I went home to Northern Minnesota and decided to cut through Canada to avoid Chicago and it's toll booths and traffic. Getting into Canada was fairly routine, "Why you here? Where are you going? Do you have any explosives?" then I was on my way. Canada was nice, people were friendly, no problems.
    I got to the US boarder crossing and things went to hell. I go in and report to the boarder guard and he asks if I have a passport. I told him no but, I did have a drivers license from Minnnesota. He told me that the license was not proof of citizinship, which is true. Ok well here is my military ID card. He said "That was only proof that I was a member of the military not a US Citizen". Okay, what about my PCS orders from the Dept of the Army. "Nope." My enlistment papers? "Unuh." Finally I found my initial enlistment papers with a copy of my certificate of birth abroad ( I was born in Berlin Germany to my US citizen parents who were stationed there). The boarder guard reluctantly accepted those as proof, although I am sure he thought I was going to break out in a rousing chant of "Hail to the furher". He then asked if he could search my car. I said "sure, why not" after all everything is strewn out on the side of the road because of the search for my papers. After checking my car he told me I could go. Driving away I thought to myself "Welcome to the United States".

    1. Re:Not so free when I went through by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      Seems like this guy was on some sort of power trip. Even if your drivers license is not proof of citizenship, you don't NEED proof of citizenship to enter the US from Canada as the law now stands. And don't you have to be a citizen to serve in the armed forces, anyway?

    2. Re:Not so free when I went through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy did have an air of dickishness about him, I'll admit.
      As for if citizenship is required to enlist, I ran across a few people who were citizens of another country while I was in the army. One was from poland, two from Mexico and one from Canada. From what they told me it helps expedite their naturalization process. I don't think one can join if there is no intention of becoming a citizen but if they are in the process they are allowed to join.

  225. Oh, very true by jd · · Score: 1
    It is a fallacy to assume that people spend more in total, if they spend more in taxes. Well, except in America, where pork-barreling is a national sport. Most things are more efficient, if centralized properly, and France is in many ways a good example of that. Britain's NHS is no prize, but is still about as far beyond America's "Medicare" as Medicare is beyond Abu Ghraib. Britain's trains aren't in the same league as Japan's bullet train, but still manage 75-115 mph on even the local lines. America barely has any trains - Portland, Oregon, is one of the few States with a train service and there's no way you'll convince me the Max gets better than 45 mph.


    Socialism argues that scale efficiencies work just as well for public institutions (if they are implemented well) as they do for companies. It also argues that some needs CANNOT be met by market forces alone. It says nothing about how you go about implementing these things, how restricted people are, or indeed much of anything else.


    Indeed, Britain is one of America's strongest allies in just about every respect and is a partner in just about every area of business. It is also a key player in the SIGINT effort. Politically, though, Britain is a socialist state. If socialism was so much "the enemy", shouldn't America invade England, rather than cooperate with it so closely at every level?


    Americans castigate socialism at every opportunity, but frankly I'm impressed they can even spell it, their knowledge is so limited.


    It is a double irony that America worships the whole "mystique" of the Celts and Celtic countries, given that the Celts invented Socialism in the first place and that virtually every country in the Old World that is socialist is Celtic. If there's so much damn mystique, maybe Americans should stop and think about what it is that makes those cultures so different from America.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Oh, very true by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "Politically, though, Britain is a socialist state"

      On the spectrum of things, Britain is much less than half socialist: the people still control most of the ecomony, not the State. It is not anywhere near completely socialist like North Korea is. In fact, on this kind of spectrum, Britain and the others in Europe are not much different from America. Just a few points apart.

      "given that the Celts invented Socialism in the first place and that virtually every country in the Old World that is socialist is Celtic."

      I always considered the Old World as Eurasia and Africa. This would add China, Vietnam, and North Korea to your list of socialist countries. I am guessing that you mean Europe-only as the "Old World".

      Are you counting Germans such as Marx as "Celts"? I am kind of rusty in my Celtic history. Also, the Celtic nature of European socialism is a short and recent phenomenon: for a much longer time (about 1945 to 1989) most of the socialist countries (also the most strongly socialist) were Slavic, not Celtic.

      "If there's so much damn mystique, maybe Americans should stop and think about what it is that makes those cultures so different from America"

      Like how this culture (through the Germans) produced through Marx and Hitler two extremely deadly ideologies, both named socialist, that resulted in the deaths of well over 100 million?

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    2. Re:Oh, very true by jd · · Score: 1
      Very Important Note: If I agreed with other people, I'd have nothing left to talk about and would have nobody left to learn from. If I conflict too much, I've nothing worth saying and nobody I can learn from. That's a hard balance to maintain, and I screw it up a lot. Even more than most geeks. It isn't helping that my mood stabilizers got screwed up too, recently.


      Anyways, back to the comedy channel and the regular reply...


      The area covered by the Celts is not clearly defined. They appear to have originated somewhere near the top of the Euphretes, but the river Danube also seems to get mentioned a lot, as does Spain.


      The Celtic federation, at its peak, spanned from Ireland into Asia (though it's not clear how far). France/England seem to be about the most northern extent. They conquered Rome for a while, but were finally driven back by the Romans. The southernmost extent of Celtic influence depends on who you talk to.


      Socialism in Celtic countries is mentioned by Julius Caesar in his histories. Those countries that survived Roman occupation the best (France, Wales, Scotland) are also areas that socialism tends to be well-represented.


      Ok, it's a deduction more than a "fact", but I've concluded from this that the raw ingredients of socialism are deeply ingrained and have a strong cultural background that preceeds all modern political thinking.


      I've always undersood Marxism to be more of an economic strategy than a political mindset. I've also understood that his ideas were hijacked by other ideologies but never actually used. Also, it is more communism than socialism. True, it is sometimes named socialist, and this certainly doesn't help resolve any confusion, but to me the ideas are very distinct.


      North Korea, China, et al, are feudal societies with God-Kings and Barons running the show, albeit under different names. You cannot have a society-based system if you have no society to base it in, and these systems have no society. They have one ruler and a great many drones. There is nowhere for a social concience to exist.


      Hitler's psychological profile is on the Internet - apparently, there was a study carried out by the US in the early 1940s on the state of his mind. Again, he used the name of socialism, but there was nothing social about his ideas. Antisocial, perhaps.


      I think part of the problem is that the terms mean different things to different people. In the same way that England and America are two countries separated by a common language, different political ideas use the same words to mean very different things.


      Ok, then maybe I should start by defining my terms. To me, socialism is, well, social. Gain is measured in net. To me, that's it. That's the whole of what makes something socialist. It's not about private this or public that, or who runs what. If there's local gain but net loss, then it is not benefitting society. If there is net gain and little or no local loss, then it does benefit society. (Massive local loss, regardless of any other benefit, is - to me - an automatic net loss.)


      Of course, you can argue that I have defined socialism such that it CANNOT be deadly. I would counter that by saying that if it is possible for a society to exist within the constraints given, then it is unreasonable to associate it with one that cannot, but very reasonable to associate it with others that can, regardless of how they go about doing so.


      You can also argue that I have defined socialism in terms of the results and not how they are obtained. I come from a Software Engineering background, where everything is compared against abstract specifications designed to produce a result. Provided a solution solves what it is intended to solve, and doesn't break anything else in the process, I see it as a valid solution. (But that "not breaking anything else" is a really important part.)


      Finally, you can argue I'm just nuts, crazy and 52 cards short of a full deck. Y'know, that one I'd have to agree with.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  226. You don't get out much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...do you? If you show up to reenter the country without your passport, it just becomes a hassle. If you were dumb enough to leave without it, then you deserve the hassle. If you lost your passport, then the State Department has a set of very easy procedures in place for you to replace it. All of this crap of "oh no, they won't let me in the country without a passport" is just that: crap. People lose their passports all the time. The State Department takes care of things.

  227. Interesting analogy by bezuwork's+friend · · Score: 1
    While I don't know alot about the setups of the US and prewar Germany (but this is /.), I think there are at least two important differences. Hitler got dictatorial power because he didn't need to get reelected as Chancellor (right?) and the Enabling Act gave him the ability to basicially dictate legislation.

    I don't see the Presidency here getting either of those powers. The constitution stands in the way of both.

    Although, IIRC the white house had plans on how to suspend the 2004 elections.

  228. because of the stupid states, DL is useless by slew · · Score: 1

    If, states would spend more time making harder to forge driver's licences, I'd bet that no one would care about passports. However, there are states like CA and AZ that want to issue driver's licences to everyone who applies (including illegal aliens), so basically, like a social security card, they are quite useless as citizenship identification. Unfortunatly, the Feds can't prevent the states from issuing DL's to anybody walking in the door, so that's that...

    Not that this matters, as people complain (and esp., the US govt worker's unions complain about the extra work), eventually, I predict there will be a EU-like card for US/CAN/MEX. There is one already for US/CAN and US/MEX, that you can get if you don't want the hassle of a passport.

    Seems like nothing to see here, move along...

    1. Re:because of the stupid states, DL is useless by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Ohh trust me, the feds can control the state transportation departments just fine.

      I;d be willing to bet your state (I'm assuming you're american) recently lowered it's BAC limit for a DUI to 0.08%. Why? The feds said either lower it, or we cut your road funding grants. Furthermore, licenses ARE getting better security and standardization of content... because of federal regulations.

      If the feds want something to happen in the transportation realm, they make it happen.

  229. same thing at the Blaine WA/BC border crossing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Usually the canadian border agents lecture you about Canada being another country than the US and let you through after an appropriate amount of scolding takes place. Basically, I've learned that if you want to avoid a lecture by the Canadian mounties, bring your passport...

    (and oh, by the way, an asian guy speaking high-school level french with a slight french-canadian accent makes this situation that much worse, although that may be a west-coast thing)

  230. No you couldn't by Goonie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Look, the United States is a large, climatically, geographically, and culturally diverse country, but you *cannot* be well-travelled if you've never left it. For one thing, you might discover that the French and the Germans, the right's favourite punching bags at the moment, actually do have half a clue about some things, for instance how to run mass transit services that actually work well, or how to use public space in their cities. Or how to cook decent food.

    Or, for another example, take China. I've only seen a little bit of China, the bit near Hong Kong. But you get a sense of just how quickly parts of China are growing when you go there.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:No you couldn't by rho · · Score: 1

      I agree that foreign travel is important to the idea of "well-travelled", but: mass transit services that actually work well

      Subsidized and run at a loss, until recently privitized--or so I understand. I'm willing to be educated on this point. When you spend tax money on a service, it gets very difficult to come out and say "this works well", because public spending gets very muddy indeed.

      American mass-transit works very well, BTW. We call them "fast cars" and "the Interstate". I would think that Slashdot nerds would see the value in packet-based travelling.

      Rail works well in Europe because the cities are old and well established. NYC, for example, runs a pretty decent mass-transit service in the form of the subway system. However, out in the Great Wide Open of America, an entire city can sprout in the course of a decade. We Americans also like our elbow room, and we value freedom and individuality--the ultimate expression of which is the Corvette.

      or how to use public space in their cities

      I don't know what this means. Public space in cities is generally used to accomodate residents, and newer American cities barely have those. Commuting is king.

      If you mean fountains and statuary and whatnot, I'm not sure how that's a calcuable benefit. I guess it's nice; the tourists like 'em anyway, but then they go home.

      Or how to cook decent food.

      You're eating at the wrong places. Try something other than Applebee's. Of course, I'm from the South, and eating is a religion down here. Due to the melting-pot nature of America, you can get every kind of European food you can imagine, except the kind of food that people left Europe to get away from. Calf brains and kidney pie comes to mind.

      If you're going to tell me that you can't get good food in New Orleans, I'll damn you to hell for lying.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    2. Re:No you couldn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you know? you're NOT a complete idiot: i agree with you about food.

      "Subsidized and run at a loss. [...] When you spend tax money on a service, it gets very difficult to come out and say "this works well", because public spending gets very muddy indeed."

      you don't have a better argument than "[it] gets very muddy indeed; it doesn't work well" ??

      what's the meaning of "subsidized" in the context of a public/taxbound service? and what's the meaning of "run at a loss"? are we talking about a loss in a single fiscal year? that would be normal if the entity doesn't aim for an actual "profit" margin.

      there wouldn't be so many public revenue problems, especially in education (but transport, too) if the system of welfare for the RICH wasn't so bloated. (there i said it; take a look around)

      "we value freedom and individuality--the ultimate expression of which is the Corvette."

      No, actually america craps on its eccentrics and individualists, and always has. and america worships conformity just as much as anyplace else. just look at the RATINGS for certain posts on slashdot. especially anybody who has grievance with american nationalism: these citizens are particularly STOMPED.

    3. Re:No you couldn't by Goonie · · Score: 1
      I don't know what this means.

      Ah, but that's *precisely* the point I was trying to make. Until you've been there, you don't get it.

      If you mean fountains and statuary and whatnot, I'm not sure how that's a calcuable benefit. I guess it's nice; the tourists like 'em anyway, but then they go home.

      It's not just about fountains and statuary and whatnot, though that's part of it. It's about making the streets of your cities (and suburbs) a pleasant place to work and live. And the local residents like it that way. It's not exclusively a European thing by any means (Celebration, Florida is apparently an inspired example of American urban planning), but they do it habitually.

      But the real point I'm trying to make is that Americans (and my own countrymen, Australians) sometimes tend to think their country has discovered the best, and indeed the only good, way to live. Foriegn travel teaches you that your way is not the only way, and that sometimes other countries do some things better than your own.

      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    4. Re:No you couldn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience US is a basically utilitarian country - everything is based on convinience and .. frankly, I don't really mind it.

      I still miss a bit European variety of architecture and such but generally life is much easier and more pleasing in US.

      IMHO of course.

    5. Re:No you couldn't by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Subsidized and run at a loss, until recently privitized--or so I understand.

      Possibly. Many cities pump their tax money into their public transport system. The point is, most people who live there consider that to be a good investment, because it singnificantly improves life in the cities, and has good effect on commerce.

      American mass-transit works very well, BTW. We call them "fast cars" and "the Interstate". I would think that Slashdot nerds would see the value in packet-based travelling.

      There are advantages and disadvantages. Some problems: everybody has to drive. Try to go to a bar, you need a designated driver who will take you home. In most European cities, you can just simply go and have 5 beers, and you can always get home without any trouble. Or imagine you are a parent of a teenager who you know is not a very good driver. You also happen to know his friends are even worse. So what are you going to do? Keep him at home? Drive him everywhere? In most European cities, you don't have this problem at all. Second problem is parking. With a public transport system, you can only go where the bus/tram/train/subway/whatever goes. But with cars, you can only go to places you can park at. Together with general lack of sidewalks and crosswalks in many American cities, this can actually turn out to be even more restricting.

      Rail works well in Europe because the cities are old and well established. NYC, for example, runs a pretty decent mass-transit service in the form of the subway system.

      NYC system is fairly decent, and in addition to that, you can walk nearly everywhere, but it still does not remotly compare to most European cities.

      We Americans also like our elbow room, and we value freedom and individuality--the ultimate expression of which is the Corvette.

      Actually, for me the expression of my freedom and individuality is more my ability to walk to places, or get places without having to drag a large metal box on wheels with me. I feel much more free in most cities in Europe (and throw in NYC, Boston and couple more American cities), where I can get anywhere by public transit and foot, than in a typical midwestern city where you can only go where the highway takes you, and walking is pretty much out of question.

      You're eating at the wrong places. Try something other than Applebee's. Of course, I'm from the South, and eating is a religion down here. Due to the melting-pot nature of America, you can get every kind of European food you can imagine, except the kind of food that people left Europe to get away from. Calf brains and kidney pie comes to mind.

      If you're going to tell me that you can't get good food in New Orleans, I'll damn you to hell for lying.


      And you will be completely right. However, USA is not all New Orleans, and there are entire states in midwest where you cannot even find bread that's edible. In most places, it's Applebee's or China Bufet, with the later being the better choice. If it wasn't for Chinese food ... I don't even want to think about it. And calf brains and kidney pies are not European, the are British ;)

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:No you couldn't by schtum · · Score: 1

      NYC system is fairly decent, and in addition to that, you can walk nearly everywhere, but it still does not remotly compare to most European cities.

      I'm gonna pull our trump card and say that 24-hour operation makes it the best in the world. It's dirty, ugly, noisy and it smells bad but, for that reason alone, I wouldn't trade it for any other system I've seen.

    7. Re:No you couldn't by Goonie · · Score: 1
      Subsidized and run at a loss, until recently privitized--or so I understand. I'm willing to be educated on this point.

      Actually, British and Australian experience tends to suggest that privatization of mass transit is actually a bad idea, for the following reasons (amongst others):

      • Private companies have a nasty habit of neglecting track maintanance.
      • Private monopolies are worse than government monopolies, and mass transit is a natural monopoly.
      • Public transport is very infrastructure-intensive, and governments can actually borrow the money to build new infrastructure cheaper than private companies can. The actual work building the new system is better handled by the private sector, though.

      But as to your point about subsidies, what you're failing to appreciate is that car transport is already being subsidised by a century of road-building and lack of appropriate pollution charges.

      You might be interested to read some of the "conservative commentaries" on public transport here (PDF) that blow holes in some of the unstated assumptions of people opposed to public transport in the US.

      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    8. Re:No you couldn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, the EU is a large, climatically, geographically, and culturally diverse country, but you *cannot* be well-travelled if you've never left it. For one thing, you might discover that the Americans, the left's favourite punching bags at the moment, actually do have half a clue about some things, for instance how to entertain audiences worldwide (Hollywood, music), or how to provide affordable food, clothing, and housing for, well, just about everyone. Or how to cook decent food (especially in the South).

    9. Re:No you couldn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, the EU is a large, climatically, geographically, and culturally diverse country, but you *cannot* be well-travelled if you've never left it.

      You do realize that most Europeans would agree with you there, don't you?

    10. Re:No you couldn't by lahvak · · Score: 1

      It's not the only system that operates 24 hours a day. One system I have a lot of experience with is the one in Prague. The subway shuts down from midnight to 4 or something like that, but they have very nice system of night buses and trams that can take you pretty much everywhere.

      --
      AccountKiller
    11. Re:No you couldn't by rho · · Score: 1
      states in midwest where you cannot even find bread that's edible. In most places, it's Applebee's or China Bufet

      Well,you do have me there. I was in central Illinois recently, and we ended up eating at a Chili's. There was nothing else, or at least nothing we could find. It was also the most whitebread town I have ever been in. Creepy.

      Actually, for me the expression of my freedom and individuality is more my ability to walk to places, or get places without having to drag a large metal box on wheels with me.

      Diff'rent strokes, then. Driving doesn't bother me, and I can get more places further out than I can by walking. And the public transportation in my city sucks 100% ass, so that's not even an option, assuming it went to places I needed to go.

      As a business, when you depend on foot-traffic for your daily bread, you do tend to get invested in the neighborhood you live in. However, when that neighborhood changes outside of your control--which happens--you're SOL. Now, if you cluster your shopping and commerce areas together, away from your residential, that makes them destinations and less likely to go pear-shaped because the city council rezoned the nearby block for titty-bars.

      Better? Not really. Different? Sure. And a lot of folks like it that way. I would prefer living in-town myself, but owning a horse kind of prevents that.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    12. Re:No you couldn't by ynohoo · · Score: 1

      calf brains and kidney pies are not European, the are British

      I've only come across calf brain in Italian restaurants, although there may be some region of the UK where it is done.

      Although if you've never tried Steak & Kidney pie (or even better, in suet pudding) you don't know what you are missing!

  231. Feel sorry for these people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  232. Sharing Security Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I really would like to see is evidence that Canada, US, and Europe are sharing more of their security files. I think this would probably make our world much more secure.

    But now, what I really would like to know is:

    We are paying the cost of invading Iraq but I do not see the price of the gas dropping on the pumps. What is going on here? Why is the price of our gas going up?

  233. No questions asked? by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1
    The tougher new rules still allow Canadians to cross without being fingerprinted, but every person from any other country will be required to submit to fingerprinting.

    In other news, a new law will require strip searches, fingerprinting, and a passport for anyone entering or leaving the United States or its possessions. Persons who carry a badge identifying them as members of a terrorist organization, however, will be allowed through on a "no questions asked' policy.

  234. Can't go to Canada by AvatarofVirgo · · Score: 0

    People will go to Canada with no passports then try to go home and can't.

    So what will more likely happen is Canada will get pissed with all these Americans stuck in their country that they will just start requiring Americans to come in with passports if they want to go home.

    Any country Americans visit will probably do the same thing.

  235. For me, it's nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The passport requirement is nothing new for those of us who transport firearms across the US/Canadian border. I must have my US passport along with my Canadian firearms license, Canadian registration papers for each of the firearms, and a trip permit (a very difficult to get document) if any of the firearms are handguns.

    So now, everybody else is going to have to go through what law-abiding American (*and* Canadian) gun owners have gone through for the past several years.

    I find it very difficult to feel much sympathy.

    That's the way that oppression happens, dear liberal boys and girls. First, impose new nasty rules to a minority in the name of "safety". Then, gradually widen the scope of who gets affected, until it's everybody.

    Under a conservative government, those out of favor with conservatives feel it more. Under a liberal government, those out of favor with liberals feel it more. Neither undoes the erosion of liberty imposed by the other; they just make their own additions.

  236. Try harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, try harder.
    If you try and want to be popular it is not only easy but fun to fault the US.

    Repeat after me, "Americans are Der Juden."
    and again.
    "Americans are Der Juden."
    just keep repeating until it comes easily.

  237. "Your Rights Online"?? by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

    What's this have to do with my rights online?

    --
    -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
  238. Huh? by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

    What? The? Fuck?

  239. What about all of those illegal Mexicans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What about those illegal Mexicans crossing our borders in the south? What will our American government do to stop illegal entry into our nation?

    1. Re:What about all of those illegal Mexicans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What about those illegal Mexicans crossing our
      > borders in the south? What will our American
      > government do to stop illegal entry into our
      > nation?

      Presently they are doing absolutely nothing
      and won't be for the foreseeable future. Both
      the government (Democrats and Republicans) and
      the establishment media are encouraging massive
      immigration of both legal and illegal immigrants
      from Non-European nations. We are caught in the
      death grip of the need to make America more
      "brown". Just this month a volunteer group of
      1000 Americans gathered in Arizona to spot groups
      of illegal aliens entering the country and to
      then contact the Border Patrol so that the BP
      could interdict the infiltrators. And how are
      these *US* *CITIZENS* who are doing absolutely
      nothing illegal get treated by the government
      and the establishment media. They are called
      "vigilantes" by the President. The ACLU sent
      a group of people to "monitor" the US CITIZENS.
      Yeah, imagine that. The ACLU isn't concerned
      about the people commiting felonies by entering
      our country illegally... Yeah, they are worried
      about U.S. citizens excersing their constitional
      right to freely assemble and excerise their
      free speech rights! If you interested in such
      matters I would highly recommend the excellent
      web sight at www.vdare.com

  240. Mod parent up, please by lahvak · · Score: 1

    This is great point! Communist were very good at checking IDs and all that crap. In USSR, you had to had a freeking permission to travel from one city to another. In all communist countries, you had carry an ID booklet with you all the time, and the cops had a right to inspect your ID at any time they wanted. There were all sorts of restrictions on where you could or couldn't do. But if you really wanted to get somewhere, it was always possible.

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:Mod parent up, please by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That's because a laws that citizens think is stupid will immediately produce a black market in getting around said laws, and even people not participating in the black market will not turn it in if they learn of it.

      Witness the drug market. How many people out there that don't use drugs know someone who uses drugs? How many of you people could pretend to have enough interest in said drugs to learn enough about who they bought them from to file an anonymous tip?

      Probably a good half of the population could, with almost no work at all, and the possiblity of a reward. Including many police officers. I know I could, at least three times. (That is, I know three completely different sets of drug users, who I assume do not have the same supplier as they live very far apart.)

      How many people actually do that?

      Almost no one.

      How many people know someone who's a murderer and don't turn them in?

      Almost no one. They'd have to be a real good friend or close relative, or you'd have to think the murder was justified in some way.

      If it requires a valid passport to get into the US, and people commonly, for whatever reason, need to sneak in without them, there will be a black market up and down the Canadian border within a year. Everyone will know a guy who knows who to get you in touch with, exactly like drugs are now. (Well, everyone who lives near the border will know a guy, I guess. Probably not people in Florida. OTOH, people in Florida probably already know a guy who knows a guy who can get people out of Cuba.)

      The only way there won't be a black market is if everyone gets passports, or they start not letting US citizens into Canada without a US passport, so no one has a problem getting back.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    2. Re:Mod parent up, please by lahvak · · Score: 1

      That's because a laws that citizens think is stupid will immediately produce a black market in getting around said laws, and even people not participating in the black market will not turn it in if they learn of it.

      That, and another reason: all those new security measures assume that more restrictions automatically means better security. But that's not true. More stringent security measures interfere more with life of ordinary people, and get more in the way. Regardless whether people think the measures are justified, they will soon start seeing them as obstacles and try to get around them ("these measured are important to stop bad guys, but I am not a bad guy, so if I get around somehow, it's OK" type of reasoning).

      It's sort of similar to computer security. For example you may require everybody on your network to change their password every month. Sounds like a good idea, untill you realize that finding a good password is not easy, and people who are forced to do it every month will necessarily end up using a lot of lousy passwords, writing them on pieces of paper and taping them onto their monitors, switching between two or three passwords over and over again and so on. The result will be no improvement in security whatsoever. And you can explain to people over and over how important is it to use good passwords, keeping them secret, etc, and they can completely understand what you mean, but it just gets way too annoying, so after a while, most people will give up.

      What happened in the Eastern Europe was a combination of these two things: you had to have a stupid permit for everything. Most people never really agreed with these laws, and in the end even those who were supposed to enforce them found it all too painful and difficult, so after a while nobody really gave a hoot. You ended up with a society where everybody was perpetually braking the law. In such situation, anybody who wanted could squeal on you fow whatever reason, and if you were unlucky enough to run into a cop that needed to fullfill his quota, you could easily get into lot of trouble without doing anything wrong at all.

      In the end, there was no increase in security, bad guys could still do whatever they wanted. The effect was instead more controll over ordinary citizens. Everybody was vulnerable, and that was exactly what the Party wanted.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Mod parent up, please by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      What happened in the Eastern Europe was a combination of these two things: you had to have a stupid permit for everything. Most people never really agreed with these laws, and in the end even those who were supposed to enforce them found it all too painful and difficult, so after a while nobody really gave a hoot. You ended up with a society where everybody was perpetually braking the law. In such situation, anybody who wanted could squeal on you fow whatever reason, and if you were unlucky enough to run into a cop that needed to fullfill his quota, you could easily get into lot of trouble without doing anything wrong at all.

      In the end, there was no increase in security, bad guys could still do whatever they wanted. The effect was instead more controll over ordinary citizens. Everybody was vulnerable, and that was exactly what the Party wanted.

      MOD PARENT UP!

      You're exactly right. People forget how many different failures of security there are. Non-terrorists breaking the laws designed to catch terrorists is a security failure if they get caught or no. If they get caught, they're more noise that need to be filtered out, and if they don't get cause, they've suddenly become blackmailable. In Eastern Europe, if you got caught, you could bride your way out, and now you're blackmailable even more, this time by the government.

      Some people think of it is as 'This idiotic security isn't needed.'. Some people pay a bit more attention and think 'This idiotic security isn't making things more secure.'. The ones really looking at what's going on say 'This is fascist security that isn't intended to secure anyone, just to gain control over people.'.

      However, it's not only the latter, it's 'his is fascist security that isn't intended to secure anyone, just to gain control over people, and it's discouraging people cooperating with useful security measures and encouraging a nation of lawbreakers. Idiotic security measure produce people who can be blackmailed into working for terrorists, guards who are used to looking the other way, and a black market dedicated to getting around all this.

      It's much much much less secure to have security no one wants than to have almost no security at all. Security no one wants results in...anarchy, or thuggism, if that's a form of government. I guess the word there is 'fascism'.

      Of course, Eastern Europe governments actually didn't want security, they wanted a nation of panic-stricken people, with a tiny scattering of violent malcontents they blew up into a state-threatening security issue, allowing them to make as harse restrictions as they want, do large government crackdowns, and marginize the much larger peaceful malcontents.

      Good thing our government doesn't fall in that category. (It's not in Eastern Europe, for example.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  241. US--Canada integration by lamber45 · · Score: 1
    I'd like to see this too, but I doubt it'll ever happen. I can give you a few good reasons for the combination, and I'll throw in some silly ones as well:
    • Both countries are (basically) federal republics, with fairly honest governments based on (English) Common Law;
    • The border west of the Great Lakes is arbitrary anyway, and would never stand if we were on opposite sides in a war;
    • The United States, and especially Washington, D.C., could use some new blood. I wish Congress would meet on the shore of the Hudson Bay on occasion.
    • The Texan Superhiway needs to go all the way to the Arctic Circle! Yeah!
    • They've got good weed up there, eh?
    Seriously, I think that the biggest objection to the idea is that it would be bad for business in border-towns. Sure, at least one country would have to bear the expense of changing its symbols, standards and government organization (mabey we'd finally adopt the Metric system down here?), but the loudest complainers would be people who derive profit from inequities in the current system.

    I've been to points farther north in the U.S. (Milwaukee) than in Canada (just along Highway 401 from Sarnia to Toronto, and also to Niagra Falls). Of course, it's harder to go really far north, because at some point it's just all evergreen forest and then tundra, and roads don't actually go through.

    This policy doesn't look like it'll affect me, as I carry a passport anyway. As other posters have said, a driver's license doesn't actually demonstrate citizenship; for instance, the State of Michigan accepts a foreign passport (with English translation of the headings) as proof of I.D. when obtaining one.

    1. Re:US--Canada integration by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      I think the biggest thing stopping this from happening is that the US govt would never welcome 30 million more left-leaning citizens in one go.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  242. Bottom Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahhh, the benefits of massive immigration of
    Non-Europeans over the last 10+ years. This
    new passport policy would never have come to
    pass if it weren't for our self-destructive
    policy of achieving racial "diversity". This
    is only one of the many benefits to come. Enjoy
    the new diverse America!!! (I wont...)

  243. cunt gets +5 from slash moderators by hildi · · Score: 0

    truly, a noble and dignified crew of language police

  244. Why are there no complaints about Italy? by comwiz56 · · Score: 1

    Ever travelled to Italy? Within 100ft of the border (from Switzerland), our trained was stopped, and armed (HK MP5s) officers went to every car and checked every passport. And this was 6 years ago, so stop complaining about Europes 'openness'. Although, some countries in Europe wouldn't stamp your passport if you paid them to.

    1. Re:Why are there no complaints about Italy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and did they take all your fingerprints?
      file them at interpol?
      mistakenly identify you as a serialkiller a few years later because of all this?

    2. Re:Why are there no complaints about Italy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a Swiss control, and Switzerland is not a part of the EU, therefore, it maintains its own borders.

    3. Re:Why are there no complaints about Italy? by comwiz56 · · Score: 1

      No. Last time I checked, if a train stops in Italy, and Italian guards get on and check passports, its not Switzerland's fault.

  245. Big deal... by Quixadhal · · Score: 1

    This shouldn't bother anyone. By 2008, King George will have removed the annoying term limit and set up a dynasty for his children to rule the new American Socialist Society Having Anti-Terrorism Support.

    All those who are still free to move around the streets without setting off the RFID coded machine gun nests will undoubtedly be heading to Canada and will probably not be overly concerned with returning.

    Of course, those of us loyal citizens who put up with unemployment and gasoline rationing over the last 8 years will be happy to see them go, since it will make the food lines shorter, and if enough of them go away, we may get 2-ply toilet paper like we used to have.

    Constitution? Of course, but that requires ultraviolet clearance... Why do you ask, Citizen?

  246. Newsflash: Islamists are by and large ME men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not the only one with this problem, and this is not a troll just real facts.

    Your insolence at being inconvenienced should be directed at the Islamic jihadis who have waged war on the world.

  247. Thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is always nice to know what the frothing morons are up to. . .

    "Another POV" as if there is no objective reality; it's just all "points of view" -- equally valid and credible. Get an intellectual grip. Now. Before it's too late.

  248. thats harsh punishment by deft · · Score: 1

    I understand that you need to slap the hand of an american who didnt get their passport in order, but MAKING THE STAY IN CANADA???

    thats some harsh punishment.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  249. THIS is why you're complaining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus, decadence knows no end; grow the fuck up.

    You will dismiss this but not so long ago, men your age were fighting and dying for this country and you're such a fat, lazy fuck that you're complaining about having to get a passport so you can get loaded?

  250. underage drinking by dingDaShan · · Score: 1

    Where are us 19-20 year olds from Michigan going to go to get wasted legally? This is an outrage! How the government do such a thing to us underage michiganders? Not only will this be a big hassle, but the cost of going to Canada will be raised by about $100 (passport) by this outrageously crazy scheme.

  251. eh by bmajik · · Score: 1

    the lusitania is a minor point in my mind.. the XYZ note being much, much more significant.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  252. Cat got your tongue? by ga8ipe · · Score: 1

    whyyyy

  253. When Entering Amerika by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Achtung! When you untermenschen enter the Homeland, your fingerprints, retinal patterns and face will be scanned! Your papers Must be in order! The Oberststurmbahnfuhrer will ask you questions. You will reply politely with all the facts. Failure to meet these rwquirements will result in immediate trans-shipment to the nearest re-education camp! Remember this is Amerika, Land of Lies and Home of Hypocrisy! Celebrate our Freedom and Liberty!

  254. It's to keep you from smuggling toilets by rynthetyn · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Since the enviromentalists got congress to mandate low flow toilets, Americans have been smuggling the normal ones in from Canada.

    --
    Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
  255. hah by bmajik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    thats a funny theory...

    i'm a red state resident (and by intention) and i voted to the right of the current administration (by european standards)

    i just spent a month in germany and iceland, including 2 weeks of schooling in the german language.

    I for the life of me cannot understand where the radical left, and those who foam at the mouth with their hatred of the US / the current admnistration come from.. i've yet to hear of a perfect politician but man, i just dont get the fuss. With this in mind, i figured i'd hear it from the horses mouth and come back to the states with some kind of new perspective on life.

    Instead what i learned is that at least from the people i spoke with, the violently anti-US and anti-bush fever is fed and spun basically everywhere, and its almost more of a beleif/perspective than anything objective.

    After being badgered about it for a while, I tried asking some relatives in iceland why they felt the need to tell me that they hated GWB (i never brought up poltiics, but plenty of people, upon finding i was american, told me they hated Bush, are hoping hillary clinton wins in 08, and that the US government sucks.. all totaly out of context of whatever the conversation was)

    What i got was: europeans generally dislike bush for 3 reasons

    1) iraq invasion
    2) "he's too right wing"
    3) "he's too religious"

    skipping point 1, i asked about the other two.

    regarding point #2, i asked if being "right wing" was intrinsically bad. it apparently isn't. then i pointed out that, compared to europe, the US _is_ right wing, and furthermore, the US was founded by people that either couldn't stand, couldn't survive, or couldn't legally continue to, put up with the bullshit of the governments of europe, so if we dont have the same exact world view, there's a reason for that. I also assured him that some in the US are vastly more "right wing" than GWB, who has really let down some of the red state voters on some issues..

    on point 3, well, i asked what the objection was. apparently the president should never use "God" in a speech. Nevermind that our money has "In god we trust" written on it. Nevermind also that in Iceland, the president's house has its own private church on the grounds, and the president is expected to enter that building to pray for the country in times of danger. Or that in Germany, you've got the Christian Democratic party with a huge percentage of power. Yet the US/GWB is seen as beeing "too religious". Riiiiiiight.

    I also had a very interesting discussion on the iraq war issue with them, and i wouldn't say that they had a compelling argument, although thats too much flamebait even for slashdot :)

    In any case, I really liked some of the things big government and overregulation gets you (like the munich public transit system, and unrestricted autobahns... only possible with the ridiculous TUV and licensing process in germany).. but after talking with people and finding a lot more heat than light, i was glad to be returning to the US. My wife is exicted about purchasing our first family firearm, since the students we met from dublin told us over and over that they were mortified that someone in the US could have a gun in their home, and that such a person would be insane, and that they'd never even enter a _building_ with resident-owned firearms inside.. fearing for their safety.

    Finally, i told the people that were frothy at the mouth about how awful the US government was, that, unlike their countries, if they disliked how the US did things, they could move here, learn english (which most europeans under the age of 40 know quite well anyhow), pay their $75 or whatever it is, vote, and do something to change it.

    In any case, I look forward to going back to Germany as often as possible, if for no other reason than the Nurburgring and the unrestricted zones, but one reason i suspect i'll never live there is that getting residency/citizenship in germany is a he

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    1. Re:hah by jfern · · Score: 1

      Schiavo case: Bush is anti-feeding tubes being yanked.

      In the case of a mother who wanted to save her 6 month old child, but was unable to pay, the feeding tube was yanked because of a law Bush signed into law as Texas governor.

      That's a good example of why Bush sucks.

    2. Re:hah by gobbo · · Score: 1
      regarding point #2, i asked if being "right wing" was intrinsically bad. it apparently isn't.

      Um. Perhaps they suddenly realized who they were talking to, then got polite, so as to not imply that there was, um, anything intrinsically wrong with you. Just sayin'.

      apparently the president should never use "God" in a speech.

      Well, a lot of people can't get that "crusade" plum that he dropped way back in '02 out of their heads. It's an emotional thing. Bad optics, you know. Too bad about all the children though. Still, it can't be helped, doing G-d's work.

    3. Re:hah by goatan · · Score: 1
      In the case of a mother who wanted to save her 6 month old child, but was unable to pay, the feeding tube was yanked because of a law Bush signed into law as Texas governor.

      Wow when did that happen? do you have a link ir a name i can look up, im not american and this is the first i have heard of this.

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

    4. Re:hah by will_die · · Score: 1

      The state law has alot to it, but the part that is brough up in theses cases basiclly allows the hospital's ethics board to sign an approval saying that nothing else can be done to the patient, this then allows the hospital to go through a procedure to stop care. There are numerious other safe guards that any family member can do to stop this.
      This law that Bush pushed through had the backing of various right to life groups and medical ethic groups. Before this law hospitals would of just pulled the plug with not much the family could do about it, and Governor Bush actually had previous vetoed a law making this the state policy.
      While it is a sad story, what killed this kid was that she was born with a fatal form of dwarfism. The liberal are beneath contempt for bring up this red herring in thier continue bush bashing.
      Funny thing about it was the Governor Bush was heavly criticized by various liberal groups because he allowed religious and right to life group in the meeting to help get the language for the bill.

    5. Re:hah by schtum · · Score: 3, Informative

      Take your pick.

      Have fun trying to reconcile this quote:
      "It's not really a conflict, because the (Texas) law addresses different types of disputes, meaning the dispute between decision-maker and physician," he said. "The Schiavo case is a disagreement among family members."

      with this fact:
      "Bioethicists familiar with the Texas law said Monday that if the Schiavo case had occurred in Texas, her husband would be the legal decision-maker and, because he and her doctors agreed that she had no hope of recovery, her feeding tube would be disconnected."

      And here's the punchline (if I may be so crude):
      "With the permission of a judge, a Houston hospital disconnected a critically ill infant from his breathing tube last week against his mother's wishes after doctors determined that continuing life support would be futile."

      There's your culture of life in a nutshell.

      As a side note, there are those who believe the infant's race (black) was the reason the media (and entire Republican party) were so apathetic. I personally disagree. I don't think this story would have made front pages if he were Mexican or Asian either.

    6. Re:hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "God" mentioned on our money is not exactly the Christian "God". Learn some history about your founding fathers, the most famous of which were not Christians. Also, I don't think too many of those european countries try too pass laws or implement policies whose only basis is a religious belief. Right wing is not bad. Unfortunately for your argument, Bush isn't right wing. Bush is a radical religious fundamentalist. At least his politics are. While I've never met him I know several that have and they're very confused by the person they thought they knew and what he's doing as president.
      I used to not be at all politically active. Bush and the direction things are going in this country have scared me. I'm 35 and the 2004 election was the first time I've voted. I was astonished when Bush was declared the winner again. I've since become a lot more politically active. I'm generally astounded at the naivete and ignorance of those who support Bush. They seem to go through life with blinders on. When I start showing them facts and evidence, they look shaken and either withdraw or begin to investigate for themselves. A few don't care because they're "God-Fearing Christians" and believe that others will eventually thank them for having someone elses religious beliefs made law and forced upon everyone. Before you start asking europeans how they feel about Bush, why don't you look into why one out every two Americans doesn't like him.

  256. The great wall of asshats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not build a wall and call it "The Great Wall of Asshats"?
    Communism has indead taken over the usa.
    George Bush Jr. is a pinko commie faggot, and I've been saying this for years.
    Free country indeed.

  257. Passports by greysky · · Score: 1

    Okay, call me naive, but who the hell leaves the country without their freakin' passport?!?!?! I'm assuming that there will be some sort of provision where if you're stuck outside the country w/o your possport, then you can get documents at the nearest embasy that will get you across the border, but WHO THE HELL LEAVES THE COUNTRY WITHOUT THEIR FREAKIN' PASSPORT?!?!?!?!?! I was dumbfounded when I came back from Mexico without needing to show a passport. They didn't even make me take my motorcycle helmet all the way off to cross the border (just flipped the visor up to show the guard I was white and I was on my way...). All they asked was if I had any fruit! If you ask me, our border could use a little tightening! If you're dumb enough to leave the country without your passport, then you deserve the headache of filling out paperwork at the embasy to get back. (yes, I realize that people do lose their passports or other circumstances could arise, but really, come on, WHAT THE HELL, THIS MAKES SENSE!!! NO PASSPORT, NO PASSING THE DAMN PORT OF ENTRY!!!).

  258. Who needs identification? by confu2000 · · Score: 1

    I mean, why does slashdot require me to specify a password to login? Shouldn't my name be good enough? After all, who could possibly want to impersonate me?

    And what's the big deal about fixing Linux security holes? Those holes are only going to be a problem if people try to take advantage and do things no sane normal person would do. My precious time is being unfairly wasted keeping up with the patches just because some "hacker" might try to overflow a buffer.

    Meh. I don't do sarcasm well.

    1. Re:Who needs identification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you don't. But Requiring Passports will Fix it all. After all terrorists will leave the US alone because they don't have a Passport.

  259. Self induced by OblivionExpress · · Score: 1

    What has changed is that over the past 20 or so years, our government has bribed the leaders, financially ruined, financed revolts, caused starvation of citizens, declared bogus war on, killed tens of thousands of citizens of many oil rich countries all for gaining access to oil reserves. This kind of thing tends to make people hate you, perhaps after a while, even seek revenge against you any way possible. This is what the U.S. government is calling "terrorism". Perhaps it is now real, perhaps it is smoke to keep the U.S. citizens from seeing what is really going on in this country's affairs.

    --
    Where does information go after it has been erased?
  260. MOD PARENT UP by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

    I was wondering if anyone had the guts|brains|imagination to think of/say this.

    --

    The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
  261. That is simply wrong by theolein · · Score: 1

    The example you give, of Baarle, is within the EU, and within two Schengen agreement countries, which means there are no controlled borders in that community. The difficulties are ones of a bureaucratic nature, like post, telephone and taxes, but they aren't anything that will get your mail stopped or visitors arrested.

  262. Why "Europe" doesn't like GWB. by mobiGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful
    • The man can't do public speaking.
    • He contradicts himself frequently
    • He lies or is completely out to lunch about the "facts"
    • ...
    But of all his faults, his biggest is that he's too brash. The people who criticize him without too much reasoning often do so because they simply dislike the way that he pushes his "ideas" through.

    I don't dislike him for having ideas (though I don't like the majority of them), and I don't dislike him for being strong. But I do dislike him for the way he uses his power.

    I liked Clinton, though to be brutally honest, he did a terrible job on most fronts. But he had a great way of making people feel good about what he was doing (or at least said he was going to do). When he pushed his weight around, it was all behind the scenes. Heck, Clinton was a better republican than either of the Bushes when it comes to cutting government spending and reducing aid programs.

    GW just doesn't have finess. Very few of the "radical right" do.

    This kind of politics may play well in some parts of the US, or even during spike periods (e.g. around elections and "hot-button" issues...though often on irrelevant issues)...but it often divides that country. And for "foreigners" (like me), it often pits many who would have little-to-no opinion of "Americans" to be rather upset with them.

    --

    ...Beware the IDEs of Microsoft...

  263. Yes LAX was a target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It must have blown up since Clinton is weak on terrorism.

  264. Cheers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I Now have coffee on my keyboard thanks to you.

    But it was worth it!

  265. DFW :P by aepervius · · Score: 1

    It not only takes forever but you have to take shoe out and your belt :P.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:DFW :P by MKalus · · Score: 1

      Lest that I try to hang myself on the metal detector ;)

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  266. The US is already hurting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US ambassdor in Ireland recently gave a speech to Trinity collage which was more or less begging students to come to the US.

    Before student visas were a doddle to get and many Irish students went to the US for the seasonal jobs (that the US has a problem filling btw with its own people).

    Now the students are required to pay a large amount of cash for the visa and queue for hours to get an interview from the US embassey and get fingerprinted/etc. Its just not worth the hassle.

    I forget the exact figures, but it is something like over 50% less students from Ireland visiting the US and is still dropping.

  267. Amen to that by stutterbug · · Score: 1

    I have flown through LAX from Asia to Canada twice and both times I marveled at the idiocy of having to line up like cattle to go through immigration and then walk with your luggage from the one terminal to the other to catch a *connecting flight*. What on Earth would stop a person from entering the US on a ticket to Vancouver or Toronto and not bother continuing the rest of their journey? I can't imagine I am the first to think of this idea. To boot, the airport is a toilet, with virtually no comforts or amenities you'd find at almost ANY other international airport. Coming from Singapore it was a horrid shock. I have sworn never to fly through the US again and in five years I have kept to that promise.

  268. Just when USA thinks that it is 'The World' by rastos1 · · Score: 1
    ... Canada starts thinking the same?!

    Just kidding.

  269. own medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi

    With all those reports about identity theft in the US of A, and how easy it apparently is to get all kind of services with that stolen identity, i think that it would be just enough to let every US passport holder undergo the same treatment when they enter any foreign country as they demand from foreigners right now. That includes visa, fingerprint, retina scan, full flight data (including all credit card info, special treatments, meals etc pp). I can already hear the outcry: "Wah! Wah! But we are the good guys. News flash: no, you're not. Thank your government for being the big Bully around the world, now almost nobody wants to be your frined anymore, and no, we don't want to play with you. Go away and make it a national drama that some chick showed a nipple on TV.

  270. Achtung! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Achtung! Papiere, bitte!

  271. Maybe it's just naivety... by Biomechanical · · Score: 1

    Or maybe it's just from living in a country where we don't share any land borders - and really, who decided those? - but I just don't get the idea of passports and countries in this day and age.

    As far as I can tell most people in this world just want to live their lives - have a bit of fun, eat a hearty meal, live in a house that provides a comfortable shelter, and get from point a to point b without too much effort.

    Whether you're from Canada, the U.S., Mexico, Japan, England, The Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Australia, Kenya, Brazil (Brasil?), or where-ever, I bet that right now you're probably worried about mainly the same things as some guy on the other side of the world - "Can I get something to eat when I'm hungry?", "Can I be entertained when I'm bored?", "I hope I stay dry when it rains" and so on.

    As far as I can tell, there isn't any benefit to having artificial borders superimposed on the landscape of the earth any more. A lot of big companies work internationally with little needed regard to borders, and a lot of small companies only deal with local business simply because it's cheaper to deal locally.

    People, your average Joe Blogs, probably doesn't even think of countries - with regards to borders and where you can't go without funny bits of paper - unless he's going on holiday, and I doubt that he's thinking of the wonderful convenience of paying money - which he'd rather spend on food, clothes, and trinkets - for the funny bits of paper that say he "belongs" to a certain country.

    The internet is international, without borders other than those of language and culture, and it thrives, sometimes with nastiness, but more often with usefulness.

    Imagine for a moment that everyone ignored the borders. We all just decide "to hell with the red tape and bureaucratic nonsense, I want to visit somewhere different and get a taste of what's over there".

    What about laws? What about the different laws that various nations have?

    I only know of a few laws that are international, and not created by someone, somewhere, who had a financial stake in getting the law passed and perceived that they could make a buck out of it.

    Don't kill. Don't rape. Don't steal.

    So, we lose the borders, obliterate thousands of laws that make no sense and only benefit those who either know how to exploit the loop-holes (or ignore them all together, i.e. black market), and change the standing armies of the world into police forces to enforce the core laws mentioned above.

    Anarchy, with consideration.

    It's a very simplistic view, but I can't see much in the governments of the world that hasn't been created merely for the purposes of putting more money into the pockets of those in charge while creating the illusion that they're doing something for their citizens.

    We don't need the government any more. We just need an organisation that ensures that people are able to live out their lives in relative peace - although harmony might be a bit late on delivery - and ensures that the core services we enjoy today - safe transportation, healthcare, emergency services - are provided in the future.

    There is no need for all the other fluff. What added benefit does the government provide to film makers? Television studios? Home viewers? Farmers? Chefs? Clothing manufacturers? Okay, add a non-exploitation law for manufacturing. What benefit is there today in passports and international boundaries?

    If you were looking at Earth from another planet, wouldn't you think that our bad distribution of life-enhancing services, petty squabbles over oil, and complete ignorance of the fact we have to share this little blue-green speck, amongst a myriad of other problems, was pretty fucking stupid?

    --
    His name is Robert Paulsen...
  272. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by klang · · Score: 1

    They still ask those questions (in Europe at least). Would anyone dare to say "actually, my mum packed my bag"?

  273. I'm sure by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Many tourists will make Canada a destination now, and many more will use a Canadian hub in transit to another, non-us destination. A quick stop in Canada, then a hop OVER the USA to your final destination.

    ...they plan to stop this in the next stage - fingerprints and mugshots of all travelling in US airspace. After all, they could highjack a plane passing over the US.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  274. How this could happen by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

    Step 1: Set up cheap vacation offers. Advertise them heavily in Blue States.

    Step 2: On the bus trip up, collect passports "for quicker porcessing". Conveniently forget to return them after crossing the border.

    Step 3: When victims are sleeping in their hotel rooms, bus goes back to the States. Passports are still in bus.

    Step 4: FNORD

    Step 5: When victims try to return, accuse them of being foreigners pretending to be stranded tourists.

  275. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by goober1473 · · Score: 1

    Hey we are not citizens, we are subjects (of Her Majesty) in good ol' Blighty.

  276. ID Cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " So now I'll need to get a passport - which costs $87, and must be renewed every 5 years - just to cross the border??!"

    That's like me having to pay £80 for a UK passport-ID Card just because the govt. tells me to.
    At least you have the option to not get a passport.

  277. Requiring Passports will Fix EVERYTHING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is asinine. 9/11 Attacks were planned over a period of 2 years or more. The true threats are from well organized, well financed, well trained, organizations. I am willing to bet if any terrorist were to cross into the US through ANY means he will have paperwork in perfect order including a Passport.

    With a family of 5 I would need to spend $335 on passports to drive into NY for a vacation! A close friend of mine has 9 children! They would need to spend over $500 on passports. (And this cost would be realized again every 5 years. FYI Passport costs have risen 50% in the past 7 years).

    Fine U.S. require passports for Canadians. The Canadian Tourism Boards thanks you for the huge economic boost from Canadians who will choose to vacation within our own Country. But that's the whole point isn't it ? Keeping people out of the U.S.?

    As a Canadian if I'm going to get a Passport I might as well go to the Caribbean.

    Link for Canadian passport costs: http://www.pptc.gc.ca/passports/get_fees_e.asp

    1. Re:Requiring Passports will Fix EVERYTHING by cdn-programmer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Nine kids?

      On what planets are they planning to settle because this one is overcrowed and the reason is irresponsible people who have NINE kids!!!

  278. Five Years Ago Too by jarsyl · · Score: 1
    This was the case a mere five years ago as well. Except at that time they had streamlined something so my Japanese girlfriend (attending college in the US) didn't need to leave the car to get her papers cleared for entry into Canada. We crossed over from Vermont somewhere.

    I can't say I'm at all happy with the way the US is going these days. That's why I fled to live in Japan.

  279. PITAness Is A Feature, Not A Bug by Steve+B · · Score: 1
    If they do go through with this, I think they should come out with a $20 "citizenship card" or something that you can get at your local security of state. Otherwise it's just going to be a major pain in the ass for everyone and it's going to hurt the economy on both sides of the border.

    A bulky document like a passport is superior to a wallet-sized card, precisely because people aren't going to routinely carry it unless they know they're going to need it. This creates a barrier against the sort of "mission creep" that has afflicted (for example) US Social Security numbers.

    (Personally, I'd recommend creating a standardized bulky document -- call it a passport, or not -- for all occasions where proof of identity could be legitimately required. Ideally, it should be required at the polls, but then the government would have to make it available at no cost.)

    --
    /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  280. Terrorists are stupid by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

    Otherwise they would have wiped us out long ago.

    Consider if Timothy McVeigh parked his UHaul in front of 18 Broad Street, NYC instead.

    The damage to the US economy would be incalculable.

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:Terrorists are stupid by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

      Although what you say may in fact be true, McVeigh doesn't really prove anything about 'the terrorists' because he's an American. Lots of Americans are stupid. 'The terrorists', on the other hand, are almost universally thought of as being from another country/ethnic origin.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
  281. Last I checked by lorcha · · Score: 1
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
    --United States Constitution, Amendment 14
    My reading of the Constitution says that as long as someone is born or naturalized in the US, he or she is a citizen.

    I'm afriad I missed the part about the passport requirement, Mr. WaterBreath. Could you please point it out to me?

    You know, the funny thing is that a birth certificate is currently what is required, and that actually makes sense. If I can show documentation that I was born in the US, then guess what, I'm a citizen!

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  282. I am Mexican. You are not funny. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Tens of people actually die trying to make the crossing. Not worth doing such feat only to avoid the passport hassle, isn't it?

    This situation prevails because the US behaves on its typical hypocratical fashion. Mexicans go the the US because there is work, very often the people that decry the Mexican invasion on the other hand hire illegal workers in order to save a buck.

    Your spinless politicians are making as much political gain as possible pandering to racists and xenophobes when they well know that if they were serious about closing the border (the USSR could handle a much bigger border, how comest the US can't?) the economy of a good part of the southern US states would colapse (which is why they don't do it.

    Politicians that would be concerned about the situation would be trying to make fair immigration laws to allow enough legal immigration to provide man power for those jobs USians clearly do not want to do.

    As the grandson of a Mexican that died crossing to the US (his unspeakable crim: trying to better himslef and his family) I resent strongly people making fun of such tragic situation.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  283. Your Reason #1 by lorcha · · Score: 1
    What i got was: europeans generally dislike bush for 3 reasons

    1) iraq invasion

    FYI, Europeans hated President Bush long before we invaded Iraq. I was in Spain for a while in the summer of 2001, and all I heard from Spanish people was how awful our President was.
    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  284. Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1


    [...] they would ask everyone if they packed their own luggage and if they were with their bags the entire time. What kind of moron terrorist would say no?


    They're not wondering if you're a terrorist, they want to know if your nice new middle eastern boyfriend put a clock radio in your bag.

    Look up what happened to Anne Marie Murphy in 1986.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  285. My I Suggest Renting an Educational DVD? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    "Born in East L.A." by Cheech Meron. Today, more than ever, it has real relivance.

    Happy motoring? :-)

  286. Please do not come here! by lorcha · · Score: 1
    You are too stupid! Thank you for staying away!

    Why do I say this? Because your fucking contry is way more of a pain in the ass regarding visas than the US is. Including with fucking transit visas.

    Stay away, moron!

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  287. Not really a 'US' issue by lorcha · · Score: 1
    Many countries require transit visas, including the UK if you are from one of about 40 countries. Indeed, Croatia also has transit visas.

    But please don't let the facts get in the way of a good US-bashing session. Carry on.

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  288. I think you overestimate the issue by lorcha · · Score: 1
    The cost for all 4 of you to get passports is about the same as 1-day passes at disneyland for all 4 of you. I don't know how long Canadian passports are good for, but ours are good for 10 years. Seems like a worthwhile investment to me.

    It's even funnier for a ski trip. Anyone who is willing to shell out US$70 for a daily lift pass plus US$35 for equipment rental isn't really going to balk at the expense of CA$87 for getting a passport.

    Don't get me wrong. I think it's stupid to require passports to travel between the US and Canada. I think it's really stupid to require US citizens to have a passport to enter the country. But I really doubt it's going to have much of an effect on that type of tourism. It might, however, deter the average 19 year old college student from crossing into Canada to go get wasted. I'm sure Canada wouldn't mind that being curtailed a bit.

    Also, I don't think the big resorts would really care about this. I mean, it's not like Vail would be empty, were it not for the 16 Canadians who come every year to avoid freezing their asses off at Whistler. And if Disney went out of business because no more Canadians went to Disneyland.. well.. I'd drink to that! But it ain't gonna happen. :)

    Also remember, there are millions more people in California than Canada. And that's just one state. I guess my point is that if Canadians completely quit coming to the US, I doubt anyone here would notice.

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  289. You probably say it, too by lorcha · · Score: 1
    Canadians definitely say "aboot" in place of about, or "sooth" in place of south, etc. You probably say it now as well.

    A guy I work with is Canadian, but he's lived in the US for about 15 years. He'll probably never lose that accent. Hopefully he won't. It's goddamn hilarious to listen to the guy try to speak US English.

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
    1. Re:You probably say it, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no its regional its like saying all americans speak with a texan accent or geogian, or boston or newyork.
      Im canadian and the only canadians ive heard use aboot are from the maritimes(or their family) or the media stereotype

  290. Sheesh. Moderators on Crack. News at 11. by Cletus+the+yokel · · Score: 1

    I don't agree with all your points but no way above is flamebait... hope this gets caught in metamod.

    --
    Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking .sig - Apply here.
  291. Your link expired, by isotope23 · · Score: 1

    BTW, if it was a link to the 9/11 commission bill, there was originally language in it for screening just like Mccain talks about.

    The last time I looked it has gone from being part of the law to being a subject that DHS will research and report back to congress on.

    I.E. they need to see if it is pheasible yet.

    I like the Thomas site, but the expiring links suck.

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  292. Umm yeah by isotope23 · · Score: 1

    First,

    The terrorists HAD VALID PASSPORTS.
    Thus, what exactly are passports protecting against?

    Second, ANY government with its salt can and does
    make fake passports for its agents. So I'd say
    passports don't protect against foreign agents
    either.

    Thus the question becomes what exactly are passports good for? The only thing that comes to mind is the ability to track ordinary citizens.

    Why is that necessary?

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
    1. Re:Umm yeah by ronchie02 · · Score: 1

      Yea, the problem is no one gave a fuck enough to actually check anything out. Had they, I'm sure some bell would have triggered somewhere. Thusly, they're actually checking shit now. And please, I really doubt the government gives a fuck about when you go to Canada to visit or travel or shit. Stop being so bloody paranoid. So they might know you left the country. And? They could know that by looking at your drivers license too. Not to mention "he went to Canada" wouldn't even be helpful should they want to track you.

  293. China mobile death-penalty execution vans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot to say how far along China has come. If you commit a crime worthy of such punnishment, the military police schedule their mobile death-penalty caravan to kill you and the agents immediatly extract your valuable bodily organs to be sent to the nearest high-paying bidder for immediate transplant surgery.

    China is a great comparrison of efficiency to "United States" (a federal corporation); here in the usA, the UNITED STATES of District of Columbia only has your body firebombed and burried after a coroner declares the civil death for any instruments pending performance by that Special body. Not to mention if you are ABC (American-born chinese), all that "tolerance" pep-talk from "Jane Fonda" gets your alot of love when you visit the verry nation she lies about.

  294. Yep,no police state here. Got in through Niagra eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Yanks said it should be okay to get back in, which I eventually did at Niagra Falls.

    Did you jump in a barrel, ride that sucker down river, and splash-down on the UNITED STATES of America side?? They don't call'em "Yanks" for nut'n.

  295. Once upon a time, behind the iron curtain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We used to envy the "free world", where you don't cross borders even between "allied countries", with fear.
    We really hated to arrived back from the West, it used to be so much more relaxing to arrive to the West.
    We truly admired, that when going to West, we did not face soldiers with machine guns, dogs, nobody searched trough our packages, and pockets.
    Then after the fall of Communism, my former "native land" joined the EU. It felt almost surreal to arrive to London, UK and instead of lining up together with Canadian passport holders, I just walked in with flashing the ID card from Hungary.
    It's terrifying to see how the world seems to take a 180 degree turn: the USA resembles more and more to the old, hated Communist Empire.
    Even the ideology to create this new police state is all too familiar: we have to protect ourselves from the "alien" enemy, which wants to destroy us.
    Even by surrendering our freedoms to the state.

    Do Americans realize, that Bush's famous "who is not with us, is against us" spin in his speech after 9/11 used to be a corner stone piece of the Communist ideology?

    Do Americans realize, that the Fox network sounds more and more like the Communist state propaganda "press" used to sound like?

    Do Americans realize, that the economies of the former Communist states were partly destroyed by the ever increasing cost of paranoid self-defence?

    Do Americans realize what they loose when they subscribe to state sponzored fear?

    I doubt it. For us, raised behind the iron curtain once upon a time, all this sounds way too familiar. We would laugh of this deja vu - if we didn't know it better.

  296. [OT] Paragraph 6.2 and Quebec by zanderredux · · Score: 1
    What about paragraph 6.2?

    I heard somewhere that if you lived in, say, Ontario and wanted to move to Quebec, you'd have submit an application form to get proper authorization to move there.

    Am I wrong or this is a clear violation of paragraph 6.2?

  297. Meta moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "Redundant" mod has been meta-modded "Unfair". Just so you know.