U.S. to Require Passport To Re-Enter Country 1223
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."
Re:passport? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Because passports are never wrong! (Score:4, Informative)
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:Mexico, Eh? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Saw this on CNN (Score:1, Informative)
Really? (Score:3, Informative)
Look at this [zdnet.com]
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. "
Whatever (Score:2, Informative)
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:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Think of the children (Score:2, Informative)
You're British, right?
It would seem so as you're conception of "Europe" is curiously wrong.
Most European countries and members of the EU now enjoy the beauties of the Schengen treaty, allowing free border-crossing without ID (air travel still requires ID, but it's not a matter of borders as much as a security issue, of course.)
The UK, needless to say, doesn't mingle.
Moreover, many European countries have national ID cards in addition to passports. You don't need a passport to go to your bank, nor to go to many non-EU/non-Schengen countries such as the Czech Republic, Croatia or Egypt.
Signed,
a European who only needs his passport to go to the US.
Erm, not with drivers license. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What's next? Interstate travel? (Score:2, Informative)
So, unless there is specifically a law or amendment against something, it is a right. So, in that light, yes, rights to privacy, and to travel anonymously are a fundamental right!
Yes, you could make that case. However, given the fact that all states require car registration, and ID checks have been deemed legal by the Supreme Court, you would have a tough time with any court case on that argument.
See: UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
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:Think of the children (Score:1, Informative)
Re:What's next? Interstate travel? (Score:1, Informative)
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.
"Reciprocity" (Score:2, Informative)
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:The big secret (Score:3, Informative)
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:Actually, i just spent a month in Europe (Score:5, Informative)
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:Say goodbye (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Nothing to see here, please move on... (Score:5, Informative)
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:Of course it's not (Score:2, Informative)
Here is a link to that story...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-worl
Fact is, the requirement of passports for Canadian and US citizens to enter either country won't make either country more secure. It'll make things easier for the border staff on both sides to do their job, but relying on ID only to sniff out potential terrorists is idiotic. And the potential economic costs will be large... ask some of the border communities how much they rely on cross-border traffic.
This is more of a PR move to make people think that they are more secure. If a terrorist wants to get into either Canada or the US, there are far better ways of doing so than try to fake a driver's license and a birth certificate to get through. Like applying for a student visa...
Reciprocity already under review! (Score:2, Informative)
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."
Re:The mexicans ratted out the canadians (Score:2, Informative)
2) There are far more illegal immigrants from Mexico than any other country. Google for stats; I heard (on the radio) 3/4ths of 12 million illegal immigrants were Mexican.
3) I know a handful of foreigners presently in the country: One Aussie, one Brit, one Canadian, and maybe three Mexicans I know well enough to judge. The Aussie, Brit, and Canadian have been granted citizenship or residency in the United States: the Canadian by marriage, the Brit got her papers before immigrating, and I believe the Aussie is on a work visa. The other two Mexicans don't even speak enough English to qualify. I'm not even sure the third -- a good friend of mine, by the way -- is legal.
4) The good people of Mexico are by no means "less" than those of any other country. It is the fact that there are so many of them coming to America illegally that calls for greater attention. 5) Have you tried getting a visa?
6) How many Canadians do you think are in America without visas, versus how many Mexicans?
Please note my repeated use of the word "illegal". I have nothing against people of any country coming here, but I do have a problem with them staying here when they shouldn't.
If you're going to mod me down, please at least mod me "flamebait" instead of "troll". This is at least the fourth time I've tried to rewrite this post without being offensive, but it's bloody hard when you're talking about this particular subject.
Re:Economic losses in consequence (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Economic losses in consequence (Score:4, Informative)
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:The big secret (Score:2, Informative)
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:what about when the shoe is on the other foot? (Score:4, Informative)
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:hah (Score:4, Informative)
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.