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."

Comments

Mexico, Eh?

[Tackhead]

> 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? :)

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[sachmet]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[schon]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[camkind]

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?

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[sumdumass]

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?

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[WaterBreath]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[SquadBoy]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[TheViffer]

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?

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[lelitsch]

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."

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[rishistar]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

My driver's license isn't good enough?

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

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[dadragon]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[FlopEJoe]

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

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

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,

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[SquadBoy]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[Professor_UNIX]

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!!

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[Erioll]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[muffen]

"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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[Eternally optimistic]

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

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[pilgrim23]

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

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[hchaos]

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!

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[ShieldW0lf]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[mhore]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[SA Stevens]

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?

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[adsl]

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".

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[amliebsch]

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?

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[rho]

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

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[Seraphim1982]

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

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[SA Stevens]

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

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[ddavis539]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[DoninIN]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[DavidTC]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[Dahamma]

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...

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[Simonetta]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[will_die]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[werewolf1031]

> 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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[A. Lynch]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[schon]

The assumption was New Mexico.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[glesga_kiss]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[glesga_kiss]

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.

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[kill -9 $$]

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

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

Re:Mexico, Eh?

[Ender's in use2]

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.

Because passports are never wrong!

[sachmet]

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

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

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[garcia]

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.

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[surefooted1]

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

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[needacoolnickname]

Can I introduce you to E-ZPass?

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[Slider451]

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

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[aztektum]

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!

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[stormlead]

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

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[Jedi Alec]

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.

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[Plaid Phantom]

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

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[Scaba]

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

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[Coryoth]

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.

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[chris_eineke]

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

Wrong. Keep the government out of cars, passports, items in stores, etc.

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[G-funk]

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

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[subl33t]

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.

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[robertjw]

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.

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[Coryoth]

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.

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[Don Negro]

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.

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[Lihtan]

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.

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[The-Perl-CD-Bookshel]

Ping? ... Pong!

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[russotto]

Tyranny, tempered by incompetence.

Re:Because passports are never wrong!

[instarx]

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.

passport?

[swimmar132]

What if I lose it?

Re:passport?

[jdreed1024]

What if I lose it?

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

Re:passport?

[eobanb]

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.

Re:passport?

[lurch_mojoff]

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.

Re:passport?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:passport?

[thenextpresident]

You go to the American embassy.

Re:passport?

[eli173]

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.)

Re:passport?

[Zeebs]

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.

Re:passport?

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

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.

Re:passport?

[Misanthropy]

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.

Re:passport?

[sharkey]

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

Re:passport?

[centauri]

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

ahem.

[eobanb]

Americans, leave while you still can.

Re:ahem.

[Dante333]

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

What's next? Interstate travel?

[Ydna]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[kaszeta]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[madmancarman]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[frank_adrian314159]

...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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[BroadwayBlue]

Here in Ohio we know who you are.

Automatic Plate Recognition

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[sumdumass]

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/

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Enigma_Man]

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

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Tiger Smile]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[mobby_6kl]

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

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[ari_j]

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

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[peg0cjs]

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

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[peg0cjs]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[w9ofa]

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?

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[MortisUmbra]

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

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[cayenne8]

"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!

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[yesteraeon]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[w9ofa]

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".

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[ehiris]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Qzukk]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Wyatt Earp]

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?

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[An Ominous Cow Erred]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[iminplaya]

...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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[w9ofa]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Johnny5000]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[w9ofa]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[temojen]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[NeuralAbyss]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Alioth]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[drew]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Ageless]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[John Seminal]

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

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[karmatic]

> 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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[mzwaterski]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[w9ofa]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[AK Marc]

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?

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Karma Farmer]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[francisew]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[RodgerDodger]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[kaszeta]

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...

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Reaperducer]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Spectra72]

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!

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Sloppy]

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?

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[AJWM]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[centauri]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Reaperducer]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[dorsey]

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...

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Reaperducer]

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).

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[mzwaterski]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Sloppy]

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. ;-)

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Spectra72]

"...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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[BritneySP2]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Lawrence_Bird]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[myowntrueself]

"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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[SA Stevens]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[SA Stevens]

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?

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[amliebsch]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[RodgerDodger]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[antiMStroll]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[mdarksbane]

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

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[bored]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Enigma_Man]

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

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[Grunschev]

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

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[w9ofa]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[w9ofa]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[peg0cjs]

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 :)

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[tftp]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[peg0cjs]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[w9ofa]

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.

Re:What's next? Interstate travel?

[amliebsch]

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.

YRO?

[slacktide]

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

Re:YRO?

[stecoop]

Your Rights Offline

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

Re:YRO?

[jinzumkei]

Your Rights Offline is still YRO. Yay for spelling!

Re:YRO?

[OAB_X]

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

Re:YRO?

[daishin]

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

Its more like "Your Rights Over a Line".

Re:YRO?

[piltdownman84]

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.

Re:YRO?

[SamSim]

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"?

I remember when..

[neoform]

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

Re:I remember when..

[panda]

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.....

Re:I remember when..

[Fizzog]

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.

Re:I remember when..

[CohibaVancouver]

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."

Re:I remember when..

[peg0cjs]

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...

Re:I remember when..

[Malc]

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.

Re:I remember when..

[iminplaya]

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 :)

Re:I remember when..

[Quixote]

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.

Re:I remember when..

[gg3po]

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."

Re:I remember when..

[Johnny5000]

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.

Re:I remember when..

[Deliveranc3]

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.

Re:I remember when..

[Ken D]

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.

Re:I remember when..

[xander2032]

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

Re:I remember when..

[drew]

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.

Re:I remember when..

[robertjw]

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.

Re:I remember when..

[ChairmanMeow]

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.

Re:I remember when..

[tangent3]

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"

Re:I remember when..

[csk_1975]

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.

Re:I remember when..

[CohibaVancouver]

(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.

what?

[zerkon]

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

Re:what?

[The Hobo]

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

Re:what?

[beckett]

no you could definitely get wasted.

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

Re:what?

[hyu]

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

Re:what?

[bcattwoo]

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.

Re:what?

[tomhudson]

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

Re:what?

[DarkMantle]

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.

Re:what?

[EpsCylonB]

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.

Re:what?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

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.

The Good News:

[elefantstn]

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

Re:The Good News:

[smcavoy]

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?

Re:The Good News:

[Lockz]

"... 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!

Re:The Good News:

[stcanard]

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.

Re:The Good News:

[Nos.]

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

Re:The Good News:

[Malc]

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.

Re:The Good News:

[smcavoy]

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?"

Re:The Good News:

[Atzanteol]

Unless an important election is held this week when information released next week would be very pertinent...

Re:The Good News:

[Aumaden]

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.

Re:The Good News:

[EpsCylonB]

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.

Re:The Good News:

[Fulcrum of Evil]

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.

Re:The Good News:

[smcavoy]

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.

Re:The Good News:

[SlothB77]

"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

Re:The Good News:

[danheskett]

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?

returning americans

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:returning americans

[ozbird]

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.

Re:returning americans

[PeteQC]

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.

Re:returning americans

[bbc]

"Damn, does that mean we're stuck with them then?"

There's always the catapult.

Re:returning americans

[The-Perl-CD-Bookshel]

Well, we have Celine Dion in Vegas so we are accepting trades.

Re:returning americans

[rynthetyn]

Oh, we have plenty of retired Canadians down in Florida clogging up the highways, perhaps you'd like to swap?

Re:returning americans

[timmyf2371]

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.

Say goodbye

[Dark Coder]

"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)

Re:Say goodbye

[neoform]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Say goodbye

[88NoSoup4U88]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[iminplaya]

...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 :)

Re:Say goodbye

[smegball]

They alienate us so much... I get so frustrated it makes me want to go club a baby seal.

Re:Say goodbye

[xander2032]

Ahhhhh... So that explains the seal clubbing! I always wondered about that. ;)

Re:Say goodbye

[MKalus]

Or that they took flying lessons in the US and actually got issued new visas AFTER they flew the planes in the WTC.

Re:Say goodbye

[pafrusurewa]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[Rac3r5]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[21mhz]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[cliffski]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[sasha328]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[horza]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[Petrushka]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[dogmatixpsych]

"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.

Re:Say goodbye

[six11]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[Damvan]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[Bullfish]

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

Re:Say goodbye

[Rayonic]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[codegen]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[tsotha]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[10Ghz]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[pyota]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[mykdavies]

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!

Re:Say goodbye

[Clansman]

" 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.

Re:Say goodbye

[glesga_kiss]

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".

Re:Say goodbye

[Rayonic]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[Eunuchswear]

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.

Re:Say goodbye

[tsotha]

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?).

Re:Say goodbye

[10Ghz]

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.

how hard would it be eh?

[b17bmbr]

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.

Re:how hard would it be eh?

[nacturation]

Oh... my... god, y'all!!! That is like, *SO* totally Canadian shizzle my come back now, yuh heahr?

Re:how hard would it be eh?

[thatguywhoiam]

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.

Re:how hard would it be eh?

[Iago515]

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).

Re:how hard would it be eh?

[Impeesa]

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.

Re:how hard would it be eh?

[b17bmbr]

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.

Re:how hard would it be eh?

[b17bmbr]

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!!

right on

[Weh]

yeah, the global war on terror is used as an excuse for the current regimes totalitarian tendencies. You americans better read 1984.

Re:right on

[mikael]

Or read the Conversatron

Re:right on

[fenris_23]

How do you think our government came up with these crazy ideas?

thanks England.

Re:right on

[VoidWraith]

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?

Re:right on

[Marthisdil]

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.

Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[CrazyTalk]

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.

yet another reason

[crabpeople]

to NOT travel to the USA

come to canada instead - all of the beauty - none of the ph34r

Re:yet another reason

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:yet another reason

[crabpeople]

"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

Re:yet another reason

[inkey string]

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".

Re:yet another reason

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:yet another reason

[micromuncher]

Um there are bears, moose, and liberals so plenty of ph34r all around.

Re:yet another reason

[giesen]

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.

Re:yet another reason

[LesPaul75]

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.

Re:yet another reason

[bigberk]

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.

Re:yet another reason

[Kadmos]

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...

Re:yet another reason

[SilverJets]

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!

Re:yet another reason

[micromuncher]

Naw, I live in Alberta and am glued to CTV news net. Yeehaw.

Is this

[computerme]

Is this what he means when he says:

Freedom is on the march(TM)

Not really a 'rights' issue

[Staplerh]

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.

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[ergo98]

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.

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[greed]

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.)

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[SquadBoy]

It's not the Canadian government requiring anything. So your point would be?

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[Ironsides]

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.

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[coma_bug]

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.

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[Malc]

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.

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[hikerhat]

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.

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[rkww]

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.

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[Kiryat Malachi]

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.

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[follower-fillet]

> Expect a lot of airline traffic to start avoiding US hubs as a result.

It's already happening.

--Phil.

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[ergo98]

+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.

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[Inigo Montoya]

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.

Re:Not really a 'rights' issue

[rastos1]

Out of curiosity ... what would they do if you refuse? Deport you into another country?

So if I "lose" my passport while in Canada...

[johnny cashed]

Can I stay there?

Re:So if I "lose" my passport while in Canada...

[xander2032]

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.

Re:So if I "lose" my passport while in Canada...

[Reaperducer]

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.

The big secret

[chipmeister]

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!

Re:The big secret

[mencik]

Just bring your American Express card. Never leave home without it!

Re:The big secret

[canUbeleiveIT]

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.

Re:The big secret

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Re:The big secret

[Brandybuck]

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.

Re:The big secret

[sasha328]

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.

Re:The big secret

[Kiryat Malachi]

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!).

Re:The big secret

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:The big secret

[Tim Browse]

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?

Re:The big secret

[gstoddart]

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

Re:The big secret

[wardk]

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

Re:The big secret

[Wolfkin]

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.

Re:The big secret

[Tim Browse]

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.

:-)

Re:The big secret

[Bob Uhl]

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.

Re:The big secret

[rthille]

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.

Re:The big secret

[Kiryat Malachi]

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.)

Re:The big secret

[Wolfkin]

You owe me a powerbook screen. ;)

Re:The big secret

[OblivionExpress]

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...

Re:The big secret

[mobiGeek]

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?

Re:The big secret

[lahvak]

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.

Re:The big secret

[Brandybuck]

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.

Re:The big secret

[ynohoo]

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.

Boundary Waters

[TykeClone]

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.

Re:Boundary Waters

[Shalda]

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.

Whew!

[SoupGuru]

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.

Re:Whew!

[Mad Marlin]

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.

Yeah, but which passport?

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Re:Yeah, but which passport?

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Re:Yeah, but which passport?

[BroadwayBlue]

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.

You know

[Tebriel]

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?

Re:You know

[outlineblue]

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...

Re:You know

[beckett]

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.

Re:You know

[wild_berry]

[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.]

Re:You know

[e2d2]

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.

Re:You know

[outlineblue]

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.

Harder for me to come back?

[DogDude]

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!

Going to Canada

[dema]

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 (:

Re:Going to Canada

[smchris]

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.

Re:Going to Canada

[a whoabot]

" (: "

Yeah, I'd be sad too if my eyes were on my fucking chin!

Think of the children

[The Hobo]

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.

Re:Think of the children

[kebes]

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.

Re:Think of the children

[Jonavin]

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.

Re:Think of the children

[radish]

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...

Re:Think of the children

[MacGod]

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?

Re:Think of the children

[mbaciarello]

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.

Re:Think of the children

[NaruVonWilkins]

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.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Think of the children

[iCEBaLM]

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.

Re:Think of the children

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Re:Think of the children

[miles_thatsme]

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).

Re:Think of the children

[Professor_UNIX]

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. :-(

Re:Think of the children

[PunkPig]

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.

Re:Think of the children

[klang]

Some are even smaller!!

Luxemburg, Monaco, (the Vatican), Denmark :-)

How is this "online"?

[Wubby]

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".

Re:How is this "online"?

[RetepMc]

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"

Re:How is this "online"?

[evilviper]

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...

War on Terror..... oops... I mean Tourism

[herbicidal maniac]

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.

Re:War on Terror..... oops... I mean Tourism

[jpetts]

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"

Re:Phew!

[portwojc]

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

The EU

[mindstrm]

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.

Re:The EU

[Ironsides]

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.

Re:The EU

[djmurdoch]

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?

Re:The EU

[WormBytes]

Ask and you shall receive: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/04/05/9834 73-cp.html

Re:The EU

[xant]

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.

Re:The EU

[temojen]

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.

Re:The EU

[Coryoth]

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.

Re:The EU

[mindstrm]

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.

Re:The EU

[Petrushka]

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!

Re:The EU

[Petrushka]

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 ...

Re:The EU

[klang]

I see a blooming motel business here!

Re:The EU

[CavemanKiwi]

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.

Re:The EU

[mindstrm]

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.

"I forgot my passport day"

[aapold]

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)...

Re:"I forgot my passport day"

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

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".

Used to be freer than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Used to be freer than that

Man, I've been hearing that my whole life (sigh).

Deportation

[The One and Only]

What if Canada deports me? I'm screwed!

Re:Deportation

[Kimos]

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!"

WHAT?

[DrugCheese]

I thought thats what passports where used for?

Shows how ignorant I am.

Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses

[fastpage]

As long as they have proper documentation and identification. Otherwise its...

"I'm sorry sir, but your papers are not in order.."

Does anyone else find it hilarious...

[Anita Coney]

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!

Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious...

[Ironsides]

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.

Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious...

[Anita Coney]

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.

Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious...

[Ironsides]

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.

Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious...

[lgw]

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?

Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious...

[Anita Coney]

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?

Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious...

[Anita Coney]

"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.

Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious...

[lgw]

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. :)

Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious...

[Anita Coney]

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!

Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious...

[lgw]

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!

Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious...

[Anita Coney]

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.

Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious...

[lgw]

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. ;)

Re:Does anyone else find it hilarious...

[Anita Coney]

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.

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[Jonavin]

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.

Yeah, not gonna happen.

[DroopyStonx]

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.

what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[the-build-chicken]

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.

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[15973]

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.)

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[the-build-chicken]

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?

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[fishbowl]

> 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.

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[fishbowl]

> 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."

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[the-build-chicken]

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?

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[lgw]

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.

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[RatBastard]

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.

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[the-build-chicken]

Cheers...all I knew about was the missile crisis bit. Thanks for the quick run down :)

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[fishbowl]

>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.

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[the-build-chicken]

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.

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[geoswan]

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.

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[xander2032]

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!

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[SA Stevens]

Also: the Cuban government stole ('nationalized') the property of a lot of Americans. There are reparations issues involving a considerable amount of money.

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[SA Stevens]

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)

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[the-build-chicken]

same with china

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[SA Stevens]

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.

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[SilverJets]

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.

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[SilverJets]

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).

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[will_die]

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.

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[klang]

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?

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[klang]

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?

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[tengwar]

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.

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[the-build-chicken]

lmao...if only I could mod that

Re:what about when the shoe is on the other foot?

[fishbowl]

>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.

Re:Strange..

[donutello]

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.

Saw this on CNN

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Saw this on CNN

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Seems Reasonable

[n-baxley]

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable

[15973]

Of COURSE papers at the border is ridiculous! They's just use National ID cards with RFID chips in 'em!

Re:Seems Reasonable

[illusion_2K]

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable

[Quixote]

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.

Re:Seems Reasonable

[JimBobJoe]

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.

They won't be caught out again

[panurge]

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.)

Re:Phew!

[badasscat]

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.

M$ again

[jlebrech]

Is that Microsoft again, you can go anywhere without one of those passport things nowadays.

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[beckett]

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.

Kinder, Safer Nation

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Kinder, Safer Nation

[John Seminal]

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.

Re:Kinder, Safer Nation

[Professor_UNIX]

(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.

Re:Kinder, Safer Nation

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually under US law (FCC?) it is illegal for a passenger to attack a hijacker.

Re:Kinder, Safer Nation

[klang]

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!

Re:Kinder, Safer Nation

[jeblucas]

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.

Re:Kinder, Safer Nation

[evilviper]

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.

Papers please!

[plimsoll]

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.

Will this hurt draft dodgers?

[nysus]

I have to wonder if one motivation for this change is that it might make it tougher for Americans to dodge future drafts.

Re:Will this hurt draft dodgers?

[stinerman]

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.

Re:Will this hurt draft dodgers?

[SA Stevens]

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.

Offer accepted!

[Mike Hawk]

I accept your terms.

Re: not really

[BitterAndDrunk]

come to canada instead - all of the beauty - none of the ph34r

It's so busy with tourists during your summer month.

not new

[bendawg]

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.

The Terminal

[a16]

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!

Re:The Terminal

[xander2032]

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! :)

We're from Microsoft and we're here to help

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no big deal really, just sign in oneline.

Trust us.

Confusing

[techguy911]

"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.

has anyone asked Canada???

[the-build-chicken]

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

Re:has anyone asked Canada???

[houghi]

They will be kept somewhere safe as 'enemy combatants' on a non-disclosed place on the Faroer Islands.

Re:has anyone asked Canada???

[benow]

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.

Re:has anyone asked Canada???

[T-Ranger]

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.

Re:has anyone asked Canada???

[InsaneGeek]

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.

Re:has anyone asked Canada???

[dpud1234]

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."

Re:has anyone asked Canada???

[klang]

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.

Re:has anyone asked Canada???

[tengwar]

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).

Please!

[fm6]

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!

Re:Please!

[Kenrod]

The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-US Citizens.

Re:Please!

[T-Ranger]

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.

Re:Please!

[Stealth Potato]

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.

Re:Please!

[nebaz]

Says who? I don't see anything in the Constitution about it not applying to US citizens.

Re:Please!

[Viv]

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.

Re:Please!

[glesga_kiss]

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...

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[wolf-]

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.

Waste of money

[mlorentz]

"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!

Re:Waste of money

[shadowsurfr1]

Glad I don't have to travel out of the country for a while.

Re:Waste of money

[milesbparty]

Uhh, passports are good for 10 years...not a big deal.

Re:Waste of money

[mlorentz]

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.

Re:Waste of money

[op00to]

What about the kinds of tourist trips that are frequented by rich folks who could care less about carrying their passport?

Re:Waste of money

[Tackhead]

> "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!

Re:Waste of money

[klang]

you will be, if you forget your passport when leaving the country ;-)

What does 1984 have to do with anything?

[theantix]

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.

Ho Hum.

[fixer007]

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.

Say goodbye...

[TiggertheMad]

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.

Re:Say goodbye...

[scotch]

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.

Passports? Not very effective.

[Sporkus]

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.

Re:Phew!

[er_head66]

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.

Aus Passe!

[ackthpt]

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.

Serious Conclusion

[realitybath1]

Its because American partiers go to Canada to smoke good pot, and come back to the US to vomit cheap beer.

Re:Serious Conclusion

[dema]

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).

Addendum

[SeanDuggan]

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...

Re:Addendum

[yesteraeon]

Are you sure you're not blinding people BECAUSE you've got no clothes on?

US has already become USSR

[dearborn70]

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.

Going to affect WNY 19-21 year olds

[Deviant]

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.

Re:Going to affect WNY 19-21 year olds

[orangepeel]

...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.

Re:Going to affect WNY 19-21 year olds

[xander2032]

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

Re:Going to affect WNY 19-21 year olds

[Deviant]

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.

Washington border will be a parking lot

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Will there be in-state checks, too?

[isotope23]

That comes in 2009.....

And to think My old Sig was :

"Next Stop Amerika! Papers Please, Have your Papers Ready Please!"

Oh the irony

Diminishing benefits

[fishbowl]

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.

Pointless: Canada, United States, same thing...

[AKosygin]

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.

Re:Pointless: Canada, United States, same thing...

[SQFreak]

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.

Re:Pointless: Canada, United States, same thing...

[conteXXt]

"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.

similar thing happened to me.

[sagekoala06]

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.

CHIP!!!

[Fuzzums]

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.

The New Berlin Wall

[SoupIsGood Food]

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

Re:The New Berlin Wall

[xander2032]

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! ;)

Re:The New Berlin Wall

[FlyingOrca]

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.

Re:The New Berlin Wall

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

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.

Re:The New Berlin Wall

[SoupIsGood Food]

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 )

Re:The New Berlin Wall

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

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.

Detroit/Windsor border

[aventius]

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.

Re:Detroit/Windsor border

[RexRhino]

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.

Re:Detroit/Windsor border

[aventius]

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.

Re:Detroit/Windsor border

[xander2032]

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.

Re:Strange..

[SquadBoy]

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.

Should be just the opposite

[argoff]

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.

But the point is

[Stonent1]

All those people that threatened to move to Canada last November... I don't *want* them to come back!

Re:But the point is

[SA Stevens]

Unfortunately, they were all talk, and many haven't left.

I mean, Alec Baldwin promised to GTFO in 2000.

Re:Will there be in-state checks, too?

[psykocrime]

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.

Canadians one up on us!

[gone.fishing]

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.

Really?

[isotope23]

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. "

Re:Really?

[Nexx]

Hahahahahaha I'd love to see them trying to screen the millions that ride NYC subways every day.

Re:Really?

[n-baxley]

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.

Re:Phew!

[lelitsch]

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

Lame

[Dachannien]

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.

Re:Lame

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Bush distorts Kerry for rhetorical purposes. So Dachannien is just playing by Republican Rules. If you don't like it, too bad.

Re:Lame

[mzwaterski]

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!

Re:Lame

[mzwaterski]

I hope that you will enjoy your time in juvile hall if that happens.

Re:Lame

[rho]

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.

What's the big deal

[katorga]

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.

Re:What's the big deal

[fuzzybunny]

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.

Re:Phew!

[wantedman]

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.

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[fm6]

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.

Re:Strange..

[mizhi]

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.

FYI

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Your ability to blind people with nakedness has nothing to do with your whiteness.

Darn Microsoft!

[jbeaupre]

They got to the US government. Do I have to sign up for hotmail too?

Re:Phew!

[dgatwood]

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.

Thank God for This!

[Twench]

Because we can't have Alan Thicke coming over here whenever he wants!

A Question of Ownership...

[Univac_1004]

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"?

Welcome to the world.

[aepervius]

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.

Re:Welcome to the world.

[MKalus]

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.

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[Ingolfke]

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.

War on Tourism

[ThetaPi]

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!

Whatever

[stratjakt]

...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).

Re:Whatever

[rynthetyn]

"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.

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[CharlieHedlin]

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.

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[SB5]

I went to Canada about 5 months ago, they checked IDs, on the way over and the way back.

Re:Strange..

[donutello]

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?

Re:Strange..

[soulsteal]

Since when did producing a passport become the equivalent of a cavity search?

Depends on where you keep your passport. Zing!

Tinfoil Hat Time

[OS24Ever]

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.

Re:Tinfoil Hat Time

[RodgerDodger]

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.

Re:Tinfoil Hat Time

[MikeBabcock]

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.

Re:Tinfoil Hat Time

[OS24Ever]

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.

Leeloo and Corbin Dallas had the right idea.

[robyannetta]

"MultiPass!"

Let's all get our propoiska, comrades!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades!

[w9ofa]

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?

Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades!

[cayenne8]

"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.

Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades!

[BeBoxer]

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.

Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades!

[w9ofa]

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.

Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades!

[w9ofa]

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"

Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades!

[scotch]

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.

Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades!

[mindstrm]

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?

Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades!

[BeBoxer]

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.

Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades!

[ocelotbob]

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.

Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades!

[cayenne8]

"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...

Re:Let's all get our propoiska, comrades!

[w9ofa]

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.

Re:Strange..

[Jonny_eh]

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.!

Frankly,

[isotope23]

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.

Also on the CBC: Auditor finds Cdn security weak

[spanielrage]

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

Do children need passports?

[ColourlessGreenIdeas]

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)

Re:Do children need passports?

[Dougy]

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

Actually, i just spent a month in Europe

[bmajik]

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.

Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe

[mizhi]

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.

Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe

[American AC in Paris]

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.

Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe

[amliebsch]

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.

Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

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.

Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe

[American AC in Paris]

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*

Re:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe

[phayes]

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

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Yeh, they need to start checking so they can catch all the criminals like yourself.

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[conradp]

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.

I remember like yesterday

[ylikone]

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)

Seems Reasonable, but isn't

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Of course it's not

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[WaterBreath]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[vicparedes]

"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.

Re:Of course it's not

[tresstatus]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[schtum]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[robertjw]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[GreyWolf3000]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[Mars Ultor]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[Tongo]

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...

Re:Of course it's not

[AJWM]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[Jboy_24]

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?

Re:Of course it's not

[SA Stevens]

At the crossing between Thunder Bay and Duluth I have never, ever, had to show ID or any identification, going either way.

Re:Of course it's not

[Tongo]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[TopShelf]

Actually, wasn't he headed for LAX airport, not the Space Needle?

Re:Of course it's not

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Of course it's not

[Vombatus]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[Deanasc]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[krunk4ever]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[BluedemonX]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[DroppedPacket]

"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.

Re:Of course it's not

[Coolpup]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[node 3]

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".

Re:Of course it's not

[whmac33]

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

Re:Of course it's not

[lahvak]

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?

Re:Of course it's not

[wannasleep]

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?

Re:Of course it's not

[RollingThunder]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[Kadin2048]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[KlomDark]

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. ;)

Re:Of course it's not

[metalligoth]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[JeremyALogan]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[JeremyALogan]

oh, and FYI... SSI card + state issued photo ID does not equal (!=) proof of citizenship. aparently foreigners can get both.

Re:Of course it's not

[mlg9000]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[Hammer]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[martin100]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[jweage]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[cluckshot]

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!

Re:Of course it's not

[winwar]

"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 :)

Re:Of course it's not

[jpostel]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[RailRide]

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

Re:Of course it's not

[OhHellWithIt]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[The Fanta Menace]

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?

Re:Of course it's not

[pestie]

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...

Re:Of course it's not

[legojenn]

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!

Re:Of course it's not

[PhB95]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[Giggle Stick]

... just ask any 18-year old Michiganian ...

I believe they're Michiganders, you Canuck!

Re:Of course it's not

[Giggle Stick]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[JeremyALogan]

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).

Re:Of course it's not

[JeremyALogan]

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.

Re:Of course it's not

[PhB95]

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 ;-)

Re:Of course it's not

[Verteiron]

You're supposed to keep those?

Oops.

Re:Of course it's not

[Coolpup]

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?

My ambition to move to Canda just got a boost

[xant]

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.

Re:My ambition to move to Canda just got a boost

[SA Stevens]

I like Canada. A lot. Don't go there and screw it up. Go to France.

Thanks.

*I* remember when..

[EvilStein]

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....

Re:*I* remember when..

[Viv]

Nobody expects the Canadian Inquisition! ... er, wait.

Little border towns

[DunbarTheInept]

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.

Re:Little border towns

[optimus2861]

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.

Re:Little border towns

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Little border towns

[findingflow]

> Sigh. Those were friendlier times. Maybe. And you were white.

Re:Little border towns

[AC5398]

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.

Re:Little border towns

[Micah]

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.

Re:Little border towns

[rynthetyn]

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.

Re:Little border towns

[DunbarTheInept]

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.

Erm, not with drivers license.

[benow]

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.

Re:Will there be in-state checks, too?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Far more than 50 formats

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Best College Prank in 2008!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

well

[Sv-Manowar]

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.

Re: well

[gidds]

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?

Re:well

[Acer500]

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.

Took 'em long enough and WHAT?

[Palal]

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.

what a farce!

[kingjosh]

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?

Aren't Canadians taxed enough??!

[d_jedi]

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.

Re:Aren't Canadians taxed enough??!

[elyobelyob]

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.

Re:Aren't Canadians taxed enough??!

[d_jedi]

http://www.ppt.gc.ca/

Re:Strange..

[SquadBoy]

I'm as white as they come.

very clever...

[bmajik]

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?

Re:very clever...

[AK Marc]

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).

Re:very clever...

[Mobster75]

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.

Re:very clever...

[Acer500]

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).

Let them drink their own medicine

[Acer500]

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...

Re:Let them drink their own medicine

[bombadier_beetle]

(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.

Re:Let them drink their own medicine

[Acer500]

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

Re:Let them drink their own medicine

[bombadier_beetle]

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...

Re:Let them drink their own medicine

[Acer500]

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 :-)

(OT) Re:Mexico, Eh?

[pegr]

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...

Re:(OT) Re:Mexico, Eh?

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

I didn't use Frontpage to make that pitiful web page.

Re:(OT) Re:Mexico, Eh?

[saforrest]

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?

Re:(OT) Re:Mexico, Eh?

[whmac33]

That's the best way to get free money I've heard in a while. Mad I didn't think of the idea.

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[Quixote]

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).

I can't even spell Canada...

[kosty]

C - Eh? - N - Eh? - D - Eh?

Got it.

Re:Phew!

[necrognome]

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.

Sure it does

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

Re:Sure it does

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

"Reciprocity"

[mhotchin]

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."

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[T-Ranger]

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.

They're "restricting" our right of movement!

[xander2032]

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.

Re:They're "restricting" our right of movement!

[jcuervo]

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).

This is still a bit troubling...

[Speak Forcefully]

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.

Re: not really

[Deliveranc3]

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?

Apocryphal passport story

[swb]

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.

Re:Apocryphal passport story

[Alioth]

I think everyone needs a *visa* to get into Australia (except New Zealanders).

The chain of deception

[Safety Cap]

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!!!!!)

In Dresden..

[bmajik]

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...

Re:In Dresden..

[teh kurisu]

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

Re:Phew!

[JimBobJoe]

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.

yay .. or something

[Kalidor]

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.

Just like the BSA is good for Linux

[nietsch]

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!

Re:Not an issue

[krf]

No captain Eo?

Nooooooooooooooo!

Back to feudalism?

[jonbrewer]

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.

Cuba

[John Seminal]

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.

Re:Cuba

[sexecutioner]

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 :(

Re:Strange..

[drawfour]

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.

Exactly

[ink]

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.

ID? Bullshit.

[siliconwafer]

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.

Re:ID? Bullshit.

[Beardo the Bearded]

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.

Re:ID? Bullshit.

[DaCool42]

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...

Actually, it's not interstate...

[Jadecristal]

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.

yro?

[bano]

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.

dear god

[ronchie02]

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!

Uhhhh ...

[hotspotbloc]

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. =)

Re:Phew!

[Tony]

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.

could just make it 10 years - 5 years is too short

[markdowling]

my Irish one expires 2011. Cost about C$110 though.

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[joebok]

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.

Finally.

[TheClam]

That is all.

GP got it right

[Compact Dick]

To the south of the US, you have Mexico, not Canada.

I shall refrain from passing a snide comment on your geographic knowledge.

*snigger*

Freedom

[Gilmoure]

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!

Texan

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

So many grandmothers stranded in Canada

[cthulhuology]

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.

Fascinating

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:Phew!

[MKalus]

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.

Why is this a big deal?

[westcoastfella]

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?

Re:Why is this a big deal?

[Vegeta99]

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?

Even the passport office doesn't believe that! =)

[Rikardon]

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. =)

Re:Phew!

[MKalus]

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

Re:Phew!

[robertjw]

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.

No thanks

[bjprice]

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...

Re:No thanks

[/dev/trash]

Yeah. Like you can see the Grand Canyon, or the Liberty Bell in France.

Two words

[chronos82]

Papers, citizen.

How do you think we feel?

[HangingChad]

.. 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.

Re:How do you think we feel?

[Rallion]

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.

More interesting..

[xtal]

Is that you felt you had to post that anonymously.

Re:More interesting..

[elemental23]

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.

Your papers, comrade?

[WillAffleckUW]

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 ...

Re:Phew!

[zorglubxx]

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

Lectured by Canadian Immigration

[Joe the Lesser]

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...

Re: not really

[Impeesa]

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. :/

Economic losses in consequence

[Richard_J_N]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[dosguru]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[cybrthng]

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

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[dick johnson]

>>
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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[cranos]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[Richard_J_N]

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.]

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[Richard_J_N]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[Archimboldo]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[Qrlx]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[Qrlx]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[Richard_J_N]

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.]

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[zsau]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[glesga_kiss]

Do you know why freedom involves guns?

Yes. Point a gun at someone, they lose all their freedom.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[glesga_kiss]

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".

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[gfreeman]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[tengwar]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[Archimboldo]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[tengwar]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[Archimboldo]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[gfreeman]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[glesga_kiss]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[dick johnson]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[Archimboldo]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[cranos]

You might want to rethink your definition of Facism.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[dick johnson]

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.

Re:Economic losses in consequence

[dick johnson]

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.

Intolerable

[omb]

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.

This is the first step.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

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.

Obligatory

[bigberk]

According to this, you're not even a member of these United States. Which makes you, A COMMUNIST!!!

The State Department is panning for gold.

[Assassin bug]

Well, I suppose the State Department http://www.state.gov/ is needing to boost their income. Interesting how terror has created new funding opportunities.

Re:Phew!

[Kiryat Malachi]

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.

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[CrazyTalk]

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?

Transit visas

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Thanks for speaking up

[tentimestwenty]

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.

Re:Thanks for speaking up

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

Nothing to see here, please move on...

[b!arg]

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?

Re:Phew!

[tbjw]

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.

Real issue here

[Bongo Bill]

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?

Re:Real issue here

[SlothB77]

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?

Reciprocity already under review!

[mhotchin]

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."

Duck 'n Dive

[Squirrel_King]

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.

Re:Duck 'n Dive

[Teancum]

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.

Re:The mexicans ratted out the canadians

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Oh, very true

[jd]

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.

Re:Oh, very true

[AtariAmarok]

"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?

Re:Oh, very true

[jd]

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.

Re:Not so free when I went through

[CrazyTalk]

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?

Interesting analogy

[bezuwork's friend]

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.

because of the stupid states, DL is useless

[slew]

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...

Re:because of the stupid states, DL is useless

[Vegeta99]

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.

Re:Phew!

[Professor_UNIX]

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.

No you couldn't

[Goonie]

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.

Re:No you couldn't

[rho]

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.

Re:No you couldn't

[Goonie]

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.

Re:No you couldn't

[lahvak]

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 ;)

Re:No you couldn't

[schtum]

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.

Re:No you couldn't

[Goonie]

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.

Re:No you couldn't

[lahvak]

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.

Re:No you couldn't

[rho]

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.

Re:No you couldn't

[ynohoo]

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!

No questions asked?

[rice_burners_suck]

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.

Re:Phew!

[xander2032]

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)

"Your Rights Online"??

[I'm Don Giovanni]

What's this have to do with my rights online?

Huh?

[halcyon1234]

What? The? Fuck?

Re:Phew!

[node 3]

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

Yet your entire post smugly promotes moving backwards.

Re:Phew!

[Easy2RememberNick]

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!

What about all of those illegal Mexicans?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about those illegal Mexicans crossing our borders in the south? What will our American government do to stop illegal entry into our nation?

Mod parent up, please

[lahvak]

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.

Re:Mod parent up, please

[DavidTC]

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.

Re:Mod parent up, please

[lahvak]

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.

Re:Mod parent up, please

[DavidTC]

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.)

US--Canada integration

[lamber45]

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.

Re:US--Canada integration

[gfreeman]

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.

Why are there no complaints about Italy?

[comwiz56]

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.

Re:Why are there no complaints about Italy?

[comwiz56]

No. Last time I checked, if a train stops in Italy, and Italian guards get on and check passports, its not Switzerland's fault.

Big deal...

[Quixadhal]

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?

thats harsh punishment

[deft]

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.

underage drinking

[dingDaShan]

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.

Re:Strange..

[TLSPRWR]

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.

eh

[bmajik]

the lusitania is a minor point in my mind.. the XYZ note being much, much more significant.

Cat got your tongue?

[ga8ipe]

whyyyy

It's to keep you from smuggling toilets

[rynthetyn]

Seriously. Since the enviromentalists got congress to mandate low flow toilets, Americans have been smuggling the normal ones in from Canada.

hah

[bmajik]

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

Re:hah

[jfern]

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.

Re:hah

[gobbo]

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.

Re:hah

[goatan]

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.

Re:hah

[will_die]

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.

Re:hah

[schtum]

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.

Passports

[greysky]

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!!!).

Who needs identification?

[confu2000]

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.

Self induced

[OblivionExpress]

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.

MOD PARENT UP

[Sensible Clod]

I was wondering if anyone had the guts|brains|imagination to think of/say this.

That is simply wrong

[theolein]

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.

Why "Europe" doesn't like GWB.

[mobiGeek]

• 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.

DFW :P

[aepervius]

It not only takes forever but you have to take shoe out and your belt :P.

Re:DFW :P

[MKalus]

Lest that I try to hang myself on the metal detector ;)

Amen to that

[stutterbug]

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.

Just when USA thinks that it is 'The World'

[rastos1]

... Canada starts thinking the same?!

Just kidding.

Maybe it's just naivety...

[Biomechanical]

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?

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[klang]

They still ask those questions (in Europe at least). Would anyone dare to say "actually, my mum packed my bag"?

I'm sure

[Kjella]

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

How this could happen

[Saint Fnordius]

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.

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[goober1473]

Hey we are not citizens, we are subjects (of Her Majesty) in good ol' Blighty.

Five Years Ago Too

[jarsyl]

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.

PITAness Is A Feature, Not A Bug

[Steve B]

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.)

Terrorists are stupid

[Safety Cap]

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.

Re:Terrorists are stupid

[Sensible Clod]

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.

Last I checked

[lorcha]

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!

I am Mexican. You are not funny.

[jotaeleemeese]

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.

Your Reason #1

[lorcha]

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.

Re:Drivers License? Used to be freer than that

[Eunuchswear]

[...] 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.

My I Suggest Renting an Educational DVD?

[LifesABeach]

"Born in East L.A." by Cheech Meron. Today, more than ever, it has real relivance.

Happy motoring? :-)

Please do not come here!

[lorcha]

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!

Not really a 'US' issue

[lorcha]

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.

I think you overestimate the issue

[lorcha]

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.

You probably say it, too

[lorcha]

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.

Sheesh. Moderators on Crack. News at 11.

[Cletus the yokel]

I don't agree with all your points but no way above is flamebait... hope this gets caught in metamod.

Your link expired,

[isotope23]

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.

Umm yeah

[isotope23]

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?

Re:Umm yeah

[ronchie02]

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.

Once upon a time, behind the iron curtain...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[OT] Paragraph 6.2 and Quebec

[zanderredux]

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?