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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
...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!!!!
- 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.
- We're still angry because we failed to topple them after they nationalised "our" assets down there.
- 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.
- They turned to the Soviet Union for aide after we gave them the cold shoulder.
- 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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
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.
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."
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!
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
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.
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
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".
d /terroristwithin/chapter10.html
Here is a link to that story...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-worl
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...
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."
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. 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.