Some historical perspective - A friend has her grandfather’s British passport, interesting in that it was issued in 1896 and consists of a single piece of paper, basically a printed form with wording similar to the bit in the front of the current passport, the holder’s name “& wife” written in, and hand signed by the Foreign Secretary (who at the time was her great-grandfather - no worries about getting quick passport service there :D). It has a number of entry & exit stamps around the borders on the front and on the back, including a red ink “chop” from China.
Customs & Quarantine are basically handled at the same time, AIUI.
Immigration is the chap who checks your passport and asks why you’re visiting Australia (or, if you’re a citizen, asks how your trip was), whilst Customs and Quarantine are the people who run the sniffer dogs over your bags, ask if you’ve got anything to declare, and then x-ray your stuff, with searches if they find something of interest or just want to keep everyone on their toes.
In my experience at every international airport, this isn’t the case. The first line of desks you go through is immigraton, where they check your identity via your passport and (for non-citizens) your eligibility to enter. Then you pickup your bags and then you go through customs. You might have thought the immigration desk handles everything because customs is generally a painless walk-through if you opt for ‘nothing to declare’ and miss out on a random search.
This may be the regulation for the convenience of the immigration authorities. They can say they will only accept a passport as prima facie proof of citizenship.
But suppose a person who claims to be a US citizen who has lost his passport or never had one in the first place arrives at a border crossing. Will the authorities
A- Send him back. What if he cannot be sent back?
B- Detain him for the rest of his life
C- Allow him to prove his citizenship by any other sufficient means.
Suppose the Feds have information which proves without any doubt that this person is an American citizen. For example fingerprints and other biometric data. Should Immigration not allow this person into the country because he does not have a valid passport?
I have no doubt the Immigration people might go for A or B but I also have no doubt that the SCOTUS would mandate C.
In other words, it may be that Immigration have a rule that only a US passport is proof of US citizenship. I think that rule would be overturned by the courts who would say that a US passport may be the preferred way but you cannot reject a person who can prove their citizenship by other means. You can inconvenience them up to the point where they prove it but not outright reject them.
Okay, so if you happen to travel with a certified copy of your birth certificate and six forms of ID, you might be able to make it through Customs without being detained for at least a week.
If the person arrives by land (in a car, bus or train, or just on foot), they can say: “Go back to Canada/Mexico, go to the nearest consulate, and apply for a passport.”
If the person arrives by air – well, they will find it hard to arrive by air, because the airline will want to see their passport, and will not let them board the plane if they don’t have one.
Does this really happen? Someone (average tourist) flies in to country X, immigration officials look him and his passport over, and say “no, you’re not coming in”. Is there any recourse at all for such a situation?
As has been explained already,
A- The primary function of a passport is proving ID before foreign governments who require passports. Although it is not its primary function it can be used for ID purposes before authorities of the issuing country and other parties, private or public.
B- Americans visiting certain other countries, most notably Canada and Mexico, did not need passports. If that has changed recently I do not know but it does not change the fact that American authorities admitted other forms as proof of citizenship.
C- An American citizen has an absolute right to enter the country which cannot be denied on account of any administrative hurdle. This is true of any civilized country. Authorities may rule which documents they accept as prima facie proof of citizenship but the requirement is for citizenship, not any particular document.
A driver’s license authorises a person to drive a car and the law makes it illegal to drive a car on public roads without a driver’s license. The license is a requirement to drive.
Nationality is what entitles a person to enter the USA, not the passport. The passport is only one way to prove citizenship. It is not a requirement.
Many countries do not require passport as proof of citizenship. This includes the EU where citizens can return to their countries or any other European country with any valid form of accepted national ID. Thousands travel every day in Europe without needing a passport.
…within the Schengen zone.
Whereas, the UK, an EU member, does require a passport for its citizens re-entering the country from elsewhere in the EU (such a proof of citizenship may theoretically also include other forms of ID, but that would probably delay the traveller mightily).
Yes, it does. I’ve told before the story of it happening to my cousin when she was on vacation in Miami (returning from a casino cruise, the customs officer decided that an unmarried attractive female couldn’t just be there on vacation with a dozen friends, she was there to find herself a rich gringo to marry) and to the director of Citibank for Latin America who was going to the US to spend a month giving his yearly report (Citibank was not pleased).
It’s not common, but it does happen. Depending on the specific country, the recourse can go from calling your consulate while still at the port of entry to throwing lawyers at the country in question after debarking off the plane that’s taken you back out.
jjimm, while the UK isn’t Schengen, I’ve gone through UK customs with my DNI only (I had my passport on, but in the seventeenth pocket).
It’s more common than you might think and in general there isn’t much practical recourse. My wife (we weren’t married at the time) was denied entry to the UK a few years back, although in that case they paroled her into the country for a few days for compassionate reasons. But they gave her a piece of paper saying “be on this flight to Washington or else!” and they held her US passport for those few days.
For non-citizens arriving in, say, the USA, the CBP officers have pretty wide discretion as to who they admit and who they turn away. Non-citizens don’t generally have a “right” to enter any country. I don’t want to say that there’s nothing at all that could be done through courts or whatever, because I simply don’t know for sure and this is GQ. But I am pretty sure that for Joe Q. Tourist it’s probably at lot easier just to leave than to try and fight the decision.
OK, but you’re from an EU country (can’t remember which one you’re from…) that has DNIs. UK citizens don’t. Not sure what would happen if I tried to get in with just my driving licence.
The American immigration service has a long history of abuse, long before 9/11. Since the victims are non-citizens they have little or no recourse and Americans mostly do not care and believe non-citizens do not and should not have the same rights to be treated with any respect. Only once in a while immigration will abuse someone who later turns out to be a citizen and an investigation is done, promises of change are made and everything pretty much stays the same.
In my many entries to the USA I have seen appalling things which I do not think you would ever see in Europe (I may be wrong). American immigration people are unneccessarily rude and confrontational and often people who are just intimidated or confused or object to the treatment end up being shipped back, sometimes after being held for a few days.
In 2000 the Oregonian did a series of articles exposing all this. I doubt much has changed except for worse.
As noted by previous posters, it happens fairly often. Some countries make it easier (i.e. more subject to arbitrary decisions by border officials without any recourse) than others (where you may be allowed to appeal the decision before you’re booted back out). One of the reasons airlines and other transportation companies try to make sure that you have a valid passport, with a valid visa if required, is because they are usually on the hook for the cost of sending you back if this happens and the immigration authorities decide they were not thorough enough in checking your documents, and may be penalized if they are deemed to be repeatedly lax in doing so.
Nope. No passport is required within the EU for EU citizens. States that aren’t part of the Schengen agreement simply maintain border controls.
If the UK asks a passport for its nationals, it’s probably because the UK doesn’t have an ID card.
Maybe a British citizen needs a passport to enter the UK, but being French, I don’t need one. 
Except from Ireland.
pdts
The embassy people are much worse. Put me off visiting the States. Which is a pity, since I enjoyed my trip immensly.