While I agree that this is primarily feel-goodism at work, I admit I’m surprised that the US didn’t already require Americans visiting Canada or Mexico to show a passport upon re-entry.
Wow, this is gonna be a huge change.
Say goodbye to high school ski trips in Vermont or Quebec. Growing up it was just a case of dozens of us hopping on a bus and driving. Having to get a passport to travel to the U.S. is going to put a huge stop on that kind of regular, don’t need to think twice kind of trip. Hell, my brother-in-law rents a cabin in southern Quebec with a bunch of friends and spends every winter weekend skiing in Vermont. Having to get a passport will convince about half of his buds to just forget about it and stay closer to home.
You can also forget about that quick weekend jaunt to Montreal, New York, Toronto, Vancouver, and Seattle if you have to stop and make sure you’ve got a passport first.
It’s not going to deter everyone-- after all, I’m a non-resident alien living in the U.S. temporarily, and I have to jump through hoops every time I enter the States, even though hyper-tracked people like myself are the least likely to perform any terrorist act-- but it will put a severe crimp on cross-border terrorism and shopping. Probably for a decade.
It’s not just the extra paperwork and expense-- it’s the absolute certainty that the American government doesn’t trust anyone anymore-- not even its own citizens.
From the context, I assume you meant “tourism”. 
Made me do a double-take, I tell you what.
Unless its a back door way to introduce a national identity card in the states and have Canada and presumeably Mexico being forced to accept a common border solution , so that cross border trade is not adversely affected.
Declan
Shouldn’t that read “heading south”, given that we’re talking Detroit/Windsor? 
Count me amongst those who believe that this will have a fairly major effect on casual travel for residents of the US and Canada who live near the border (which, in the case of Canada, is most of them).
I am always amazed so few North Americans have a passport. Really remarkable.
In any case, I would suppose that if the US, Canada and Mexico were to adopt some sort of super-duper requirements for driver’s licenses, then such licenses would be sufficient for border formalities. Doing that of course would be a much bigger PITA than requiring passports.
This is actually one of the reasons I’m not totally against this bill. The ending of easy weekend trips to Canada kinda stinks, but I find the idea of all those SoCal high school kids getting trapped in Tijuana immensely entertaining.
Diplomacy being a tit-for-tat world, is it likely that Canada and Mexico (and the other targeted countries) will begin requiring passports of tourists from the US?
I thought about it but really, what’s the point? The US passport system is much weaker (on the surface) than Canada’s. At least in our system you have to have a professional (family doctor, licensed engineer, school principal, dentist or government official (IIRC)) to verify who you are and how long they have known you (a PITA for me as I don’t have a regular dentist/doctor and have been out of school for years) your SIN, birth certificate and DL/photo ID.
If all it takes is 2 forged documents to get a US passport (a DL with fake photo of you, and a matching birth certificate) it would seem to be a much weaker system. Does the American system at least require a SSN? I’d guess faking that to be much harder (as they could pull a credit check and verify all sorts of things).
I’m surprised people bother visiting the US at all. If I needed to be finger printed to enter a country, I wouldn’t enter said country.
Frankly, I’m not surprised by this - it’s simply the continuation of the thinking behind the whole Department of Homeland Security. An expensive boondoggle that’s going to have no benefit other to employ several thousand more civil servants.
Just in case anyone’s still interested, here’s the announcement of this straight from the Dept of State:
And I’ll note that Elvis, in his OP has over-represented the situation. These rules are only proposed at this stage. They have been announced so that concerned parties may comment on them and suggest revisions.
Also, since there’s been quite a bit of discussion about the supposedly lax rules for obtaining a U.S. passport, the first link here, also from the Dept of State, lays out all their requirements for making application. The second link goes to Canada’s requirements.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html
http://www.pptc.gc.ca//passports/how_obtain_e.asp
I see the only real difference being that Canada requires a person (of some supposed authority) to sign as a guarantor for applicants. If one does not have an eligible guarantor, one may still apply by completing (and having notarized) form PPT 132 (a copy of which I cannot find on the Canadian passport pages).
Mebbe you should all of the article you linked up there at the top?
And I’m still waiting for your answer to the question, "Here comes what, exactly? You led off your OP with this statment; you must have had something in mind?
Your SSN is required on the application, but you don’t have to show it to the officer. However, I believe all states require you to present your SSN card (and a certified birth certificate) when obtaining a driver’s license (or official state ID card). A driver has the option (in some states, Ohio being one of them) of having his SSN imprinted on his license, or not.
It doesn’t even need to be tit-for-tat. I was reading an article about this in the paper today which stated that Canada and Mexico would look at requiring US citizens to show passports to enter their respective countries for the simple reason that they don’t want a bunch of Yanks stranded at the border when they try to return to the US.
And as was alluded to in another post, the states are quite less than sanguine about the Feds imposing from above a universal Super-Driver’s-License standard (which means [a] the states would have to pay to reconfigure their DL formats and standards and ** nobody’ll believe that it’s not a backdoor way of creating the much-despised National ID card).
Here comes what, you ask? Isn’t it clear by now after reading this thread? A bout of feel-goodism to be paid for by economic depression in the border and tourist areas. More about that:
Not “proposed”, but “law … requirement”. Continuing:
That’s what’s “coming”.:rolleyes:
The depressing effect comes from the cost and bureaucratic cumbersomeness of obtaining a passport - that should have been clear.
"Mebbe you should all of the article ", you ask? Maybe you should read your own cite: “American citizens **may ** need passports”. You have a problem with wondering which way that “may” will go? Sheesh.
Perhaps you’d like to actually discuss the topic instead of looking for zinger openings - especially when you’re failing. Are you, for instance, convinced of the argument that this measure will actually improve US security?
FTR, here’s what an American getting a passport for the first time has to do.
When I got mine about ten years ago (and the only time I’ve used it was going to and from Canada and Bermuda) it was about twelve bucks for the photos and ten for the embossed copy of the birth certificate, which had to be done in writing back and forth since I wasn’t living in the same state I’d been born in. Don’t forget that cities and towns will also charge for this little service.
It is good to have them in general, I beleive, and they are good for ten years and the renewal fees aren’t that bad…but say goodbye to impulse trips. Once you wait and get all the documentation you need to wait 4-5 weeks for the thing to arrive (although that may have changed in ten years) so it took about two months for me to complete the process. And if you have a bunch of kids, well, that’s gonna add up fast.
Part of the reason so few Americans have passports is because all the neighboring countries don’t need them. We only share a direct border with two and most of the places middle-class people can afford on vacation, like the Caribbean, are pretty relaxed abut passports too.
And perhaps you’d like to read the very first post I made in this thread which answered that question in the negative.
Moreover, I have been discussing the topic. I asked what you meant by your very first declaration here. Since you chose not to answer explicitly when I initially asked, I asked again. Other than that, I’ve been left to guess what “it” means. Is not a request for clarification of your statements “on topic?”
Further, you alluded to some great inconvenience U.S citizens would be put to, to obtain a passport. I’ve provided the requirements for getting such. And there’s no great obstacle there. In fact, the Canadians here seem to be surprised at how easy it is to get a passport in the United States. If general agreement with my assessment from the folks sharing that very long common border to the north is losing the argument, then you have a very odd method of score-keeping. Notably, all this also is a discussion of the topic at hand; it is all came directly out of a claim made in your OP.
As for the economic impact of these regulations, I’m not sure how accurate an assessment can be made until they’re fleshed out in a final form. My feeling is that it’s not going to be all that significant. Anyone traveling over the border with any regularity is simply gonna get a passport - which as shown and agreed to by many others here, simply isn’t that much of a hardship.
Infrequent casual travelers (the economic benefits of which have not been demonstrated except by anecdote) may have to put themselves to the inconvenice and expense of showing up at the post office for fifteen minutes with a couple of commonly available documents which, if they’re crossing the border now, they already have and laying down a hundred bucks. But they’ve also got two friggin’ years to prepare themselves for that eventuality since the regulations as proposed won’t go into full force until Jan 2008.
Yes, proposed. The regulations currently under discussion are the proposed solution to the law passed previously by Congress. The law Congress passed required only that the regulations for crossing our North American borders be studied. Once again, the link you have provided is nothing more than a newspaper story. I gave you the link to the actual statement from the State Department. It says:
See? Proposed.
If you refuse to discuss the subject in good faith, it would be better not to try, m’kay? For instance, you’re admitting that the rule won’t help, you’ve been presented with a substantial body of opinion that they’ll hurt (and you haven’t said it won’t, except to denigrate the views of those who will be affected as overwrought), yet you’re still in favor of it. Perhaps you’d like to begin to participate in the discussion and explain why you conclude that?
“Proposed”, you insist? *This * administration is going to back down on something purportedly homeland-security-related? Don’t kid a kidder.
:rolleyes:
This is a pretty silly idea. Any terrorist with a little bankroll can get into the U.S., and there’s no way to stop that without building a fence from San Diego to El Paso, which ain’t gonna happen. If the government really wanted to “control the borders”, it would require those on extended visits to register with local police, and would require that anyone found to be in the country without papers to be given a speedy hearing before an immigration judge. As it is now, the system is rigged to let anyone who gets across the border stay indefinitely. That way they can contribute to our economy by mowing lawns, hanging drywall, or building a dirty bomb.
This is public relations, pure and simple. It is designed to make people think the government is trying to secure the border, when nothing could be further from the truth.
It ain’t me insisting that the regulations are merely proposed - it’s the fucking U.S. Department of State. The only thing I’m insisting upon is accuracy. You, however, seem much more concerned with shouting your opinion as loudly as possible.
Back up there, son. If I’m not discussing the issue in good faith, then why are there so many reponses to the points I’ve raised and data I’ve provided? Furthermore, I’ve provided more hard factual data to this thread than you and the other participants combined.
You’re correct in one thing, though. I have admitted that the proposed regulation ain’t likely help. In fact, I’m not entirely sure there’s even a real problem to be solved. I am not, however, “denigrating” anybody’s opinion that this is a going to have a significant negative economic impact in border areas. In addressing the potential economics of the sitution, I’ve only said that I’m not so sure. As you’ve noted we have only “opinion” here which claims there will be a significant economic impact. Why is it that when others (who happen to oddly enough agree with you) state an unsubstantiated opinion they’re productively engaged in the conversation. Yet, you take my equivalent responses of opinion to be “not in good faith?”
Another thing I must take objection to here is your claim that I support these regulations as proposed. On principle, I don’t. I can see why you may have reached that conclusion, but if you’d read back through this carefully (a task that seems to have wholly escaped you when reading the linked pages in this thread, so I’m not optimistic) you’d note that I haven’t actually expressed support or non-support of this. I got into this initially only to take exception to your opinion given in the OP that obtaining a passport is gonna be some huge inconvenient burden for people to get passports. It, quite simply and as amply demonstrated, ain’t.