“The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, being the representative in Australia of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, requests all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer, an Australian Citizen, 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.”
The next question to be answered is why Ravenman has passports issued by so many different countries to hand and why he has never been seen in the same room as mild-mannered Clarke Kent???
WAG: Historically, passports were essentially VIP documents. Until WW I, ordinary people didn’t need them to travel and probably couldn’t get them. Between the wars, you still didn’t need a passport to travel anywhere in the western hemisphere (if you were an American anyway). After WW II, the various North and South American countries started restricting this right. Even so, for a long time you could travel to Canada and, I think, Mexico with no passport. They wanted some kind of ID, but my wife once (maybe 40 years ago) enter the US with nothing more than a dept. store credit card. Between Canada and the US passports (or some other official ID such as “enhanced” driver’s licences) have been required for only a few years.
But I suspect that wording goes back to the historical use of passports as VIP documents.
So if someone comes up to your door, and you let them into your house, you would feel they were trespassing if they also brought in that purse you could clearly see they were carrying?
I suppose the real question here is, in what way is entry into a private dwelling with personal effect like importation of goods into a country?
I’m afraid my friends do not seem to have inspections for contraband. And yet, they do often levy a tariff-in-kind if I am found to be bringing alcohol into their domain. Interesting…
I think there was a previous Dope thread where people posted the messages in their various passports (though that would probably not explain the North Korean one :dubious:).
All of that stuff I posted (and much more) is easily found online.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Giberto de Piento, Giberto de Piento, your party is waiting for you.
“The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada requests, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, 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.”
Probably the Secretary of State at the Foreign Office.
Yup. The Foreign Secretary’s full title is “Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs”.
In most airports I’ve been in, immigration (where they check your passport) and customs (where they check your bags), are separate desks. Once immigration checks your passport, then you’re “in.” But now your subject to some rules, one of them being you’ve got to pay taxes on all that stuff and they need to make sure you’re not lying about it.
What is the confusion? Do you honestly believe that because of some wording in your passport, no government official has the right to stop you for any reason?
It’s an ornament.
I absolutely love that phrase “requests and requires”. Or, in the first person, “request and require”. I saw that once some years ago, and since then I use it myself every chance I get. 
Giberto de Piento was the name on Jason Bourne’s Brazilian passport.
Google is your yada, yada…
Jason Bourne
(I’ll go Google it.)
So it seems that the point is that* in the Law*, a customs check or security screening are NOT considered to be “a hindrance”. Even if they make you miss your connection in secondary screening.
How I read the boilerplate text on the passports is that the different issuing authorities are telling the relevant agencies: “Please allow this person to move along with no more hassle than you’d give anyone else coming through lawfully and peacefully; make sure s/he’s given what protections of law may apply while there”. But then, if everyone coming through lawfully and peacefully is still subject to customs duties or a security screening according to the applicable law, so be it.
As it stands I’ve only had to submit to additional questioning or screening or search like three times in 20+ years and not since 2007, so for all effects I have been proceeding unhindered both legally and practically.