My U.S. Passport (as well as all others, I’m sure) contains the following text:
“The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection.”
So when I re-enter the U.S. from overseas and customs wants to search my bags, aren’t they disobeying the directive from the Secretary? Do I have the right to tell them to piss off and that they are delaying and hindering me and that Hillary Clinton will have their asses?
off the top of my head I’d say that a) it’s a ‘request’ and b) even if they were to respect the request, there’s nothing in there about giving your luggage the same
edit: just realized this is GQ, and my response most certainly does not quality; I’m sure someone will be along shortly with a cite showing how/why/what powers customs has in relation to the wording on your passport.
It is a message to other countries, and I would imagine that they have no obligation to follow it. I would be interested in hearing the history of this, though, if anybody knows anything, showing why it is there.
Second, it may be a request by the Secretary of State but U.S. Customs and Border Control are not under the authority of the Secretary of State so I don’t know that they’d be obliged to do so even if she was asking that customs stop searching things at the border.
The Queen requests the same in my passport, but it never stopped US, UK, or Canadian customs and immigration from doing their thing. I think the key is that it’s a request, with pretty please on it.
I understand that it can only be a “request” to other countries. The US doesn’t have the authority to order other countries to do certain things (again GQ) or vice versa.
But I would understand this “request” as similar to “asking” someone to leave your home. It’s a polite way of saying “do it!” when one has the authority to do so.
I would find it fascinating if the Secretary of State couldn’t issue an order to a customs official, but I guess its possible.
So the Secretary is politely requesting that officials in other countries allow a national to pass without delay, when officials in this country refuse to do the same? Seems hypocritical, no?
I think “without delay or hindrance” here means more like “without 5 years in a detainment center and waterboarding” rather than “without 4 minutes in line for passport and customs control”.
Every passport from other countries that I’ve seen says this, or something pretty similar. It’s the conventional format, kind of like a letter of reference: “To Whom it May Concern: I’m Such-and-Such important person, and I’d like to recommend this person…” etc. Doesn’t mean you’re necessarily going to get the job, though.
Because the Executive Department needs to get on the same page. You’ve got one cabinet official asking everyone in the world to let person X pass without delay, while another cabinet official tells even the lowest underling in his department to dishonor that request.
Not really, no, they don’t. It’s nice if they do, but not required.
Besides, in this case, you are not your baggage. You must be allowed into the US if you have a valid US passport, but it says nothing about stuff you are carrying with you. If you want that, you need to have a diplomatic pouch, and that would only apply if you weren’t a US citizen.
Do you think the Secretary of State can legitimately make a request that would bind US customs officers to not following the law?
19 USC 1582: “The Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe regulations for the search of persons and baggage . . . . and all persons coming into the United States from foreign countries shall be liable to detention and search by authorized officers or agents of the Government under such regulations.”
You might want to rephrase your question and ask why the Secretary of State makes such an unreasonable request… but, of course, it is just common sense that the request in the passport refers to undue delay or unjustified hindrance, even if that meaning is somewhat implicit.
It’s an artifact of the US Customs Service formerly being in the Treasury Department, but being re-established as the US Customs and Border Protection in 2003.
Unfortunately, the technology to have flying CBP officers board an airplane while it is circling at 30,000 feet and conduct passport inspections and baggage checks for contraband hasn’t quite been perfected yet. (The technique was demonstrated by Kurt Russel and Steven Seagal in the 1996 film “Executive Decision,” but there were some glitches.) So we have to make due with the realization that the administrative procedures to ascertain legal entry into the United States is not the same process as being physically present inside US territory.
The British one is a little more insistent. My passport says:
“Her Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.”
I still have to go through customs, though. That said, I’ve never once in my life been checked at customs.
Ok, I did. But I still don’t like it. Just because it’s impractical doesn’t mean that the law should creation a fiction to say that inside the airport in Miami, FLORIDA is not physically inside the U.S.
But, I digress as this is GQ. So back to the OP, what is the freaking purpose of that language if foreign governments don’t abide by it, and U.S. officials don’t abide by it?
Putting a prefix like undue or unjustified on those words change the meaning of them completely. If your employer said, “Get this to the post office without delay!” would you interpret that stopping for lunch first was okay because, after all, we all need to eat?
I guess my OP has fell to the 1st response in this thread. What is the meaning and purpose of the language if it is not followed by anyone?
That phrase is what makes it a passport in the first place, as opposed to a national ID card or a driver’s license or some such. When you hand it to a border official, you’re saying “Here’s my country’s request that your country allow me to pass your port of entry.” Remember, the document you’re holding is the issuing country’s certification that you are who you say you are, so it’s not a message from you to the other country; it’s a message from the issuing country to the other country.
And the message requests only that you be granted entry, not you and whatever goods you may be carrying. Collecting duties and customs is perfectly compatible with the “request” for unhindered entry of the person.
It is a common, but not required, feature of most countries’ passports. The wording varies somewhat, but think of it like that statement on dollars bills: “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” Would a dollar still be a dollar if the government decided to no longer print that on the currency? Of course. Does the presence of that phrase create any obligation on behalf of anyone that would otherwise not exist in law? Of course not. No matter how one can read that phrase, it doesn’t override any laws or regulations just because you happen to have a dollar with that phrase printed on it.
I’m not entirely sure of the origin of the phrasing – my hunch is that it is an early 20th century phrase, seeing as how that’s when passports started to be standardized and more common. But here are some examples of how other countries use the greeting. You can see that for those countries that include the greeting, the wording is fairly consistent:
Argentina: The Government of the Argentine Republic hereby requests all whom it may concern, to permit the bearer to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need, to give all lawful aid and protection.
Brazil: Foreign authorities are requested to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.
China: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China requests all civil and military authorities of foreign countries to allow the bearer of this passport to pass freely and afford assistance in case of need.
Ghana: These are to request and require in the name of the President of the Republic of Ghana all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford him or her every assistance and protection of which he or she may stand in need.
India: These are to request and require in the name of the President of the Republic of India all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford him or her, every assistance and protection of which he or she may stand in need. // By the order of the President of the Republic of India
Israel: The Minister of the Interior of the State of Israel hereby requests all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer of this passport to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford him such assistance and protection as may be necessary.
Netherlands: In the name of her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, etc.etc.etc., the Minister of Foreign Affairs requests all authorities of friendly powers to allow the bearer of the present passport to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer every assistance and protection which may be necessary. [sic]
North Korea: The holder of this passport is under protection of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. All those whom it may concern are hereby requested to allow the holder to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the holder with assistance and protection as may be necessary.
South Africa: In the Name of the President // The President of the Republic of South Africa requests all whom it may concern to allow the bearer of this passport to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer all necessary assistance and protection.
*** ETA: I think if you ever get stopped for speeding, you should whip out your passport and tell the cop that Hillary Clinton is telling the policeman to let you go. Good luck!
