Canada: we’re really fucking mean to American tourists That is one mighty typo of mine, and I’m glad I didn’t do that at work.
As for the simplicity of getting your first American passport compared to Canada, I agree that it will not deter anyone planning a trip across the border, or to anyone who regularly crosses the border for economic reasons: it will detract from the initial, impulsive trips that many people make. I could ask around the office and easily find dozens of people who made their first trip to Canada as an impulsive weekend roadtrip while in college. That kind of trip will disappear for a number of years, until the U.S. and Canada reach the stage where everyone has a passport.
It’s just sad that this is the complete opposite direction that Europe is taking.
I’m still unclear what this is supposed to accomplish. Did we almost get taken over by Canada or something? Because… someone would have let me know, right?
For those actually paying attention, from the link in post #35:
And from the first link (Dept. of State) in UncleBeer’s post (my bolding):
I’m not familiar with the hassle factor of getting one of these other documents, but it seems that it is incorrect to jump to the conclusion that a passport will be required in all instances, and that State is simply ignoring the needs of border residents.
For the record, though, I doubt this action will make us any more secure.
What percentage of Americans and Canadians have passports? My firends in Europe tell me one of the first things they do for thier newborns is get them a passport.
It just doesn’t seem that big a deal to me. If you live near the border and think you’ll want to casually go back and forth, then get a passport. It’s not that much of an expense if border-crossing figures frequently in your lifestyle. And for Americans, the passport lasts for 10 years.
If you don’t live near the border but find yourself headed to Canada or Mexico for a vacation, then having to get a passport is a minor inconvenience at most. Even before we heard of these new proposals, I’d read that a passport was not necessary but strongly recommended for going to Canada, or into Mexico beyond the border zone.
Probably not many. I think I heard someone on the radio say 35% yesterday, but that sounds awfully high. The plain truth is that the vast majority of Americans never go overseas, and until now have never needed passports for visiting Canada or Mexico.
Actually we should take the high road and not demand passports to enter Canada. So when all the absent-minded Americans are stuck on our side of the border, we would make a killing feeding them, providing them with accomodations, etc… while they sort out their situation
And distances between foreign countries in Europe is small, and they can be driven to. I live in Michigan. At the moment, I’d have to drive to Central America before I got to a country I needed a passport to enter.
John, Unc, if you don’t even know what these alternative procedures even are, much less that they’ll be implemented instead, you’re not in a good position to claim the situation won’t really be that bad, now are you? Believe it or not, you righties are not required to back each other all the way, no matter what, ya know - unless that’s part of the secret blood oath of loyalty you don’t talk about. If this law/proposal/whateveryoulike isn’t defensible, you look foolish trying to defend it anyway.
Then knock off the silly abuse attempts and try to make your points more clearly in the future. If *that * problem is a symptom of muddled thinking on your part, don’t blame anybody else for it.
detop, be careful what you wish for - there’s a lot more Yanks than Canucks, the visitors might like it in Canada and stay, then they’d start agitating about taxation without representation, and you know where *that * leads.
Except that I never said “the situation won’t really be that bad”. You did. Given that you were in error saying that a passport would be required, it is encumbent on YOU to demonstrate that these other means of identification are “that bad”. But the fact is, we really don’t know what the final policy will be, so none of us really is in a position to say. Maybe the “other means of identification” will turn out to be a ruse, and they won’t help any. Maybe a workable accomodation will be made for those liviing in border communities. Right now, we really don’t know.
Snort. No one else has any obligation to supply the underpinnings for your own speculation.
The “proposal” as it stands does require passports. There “may” be alternative methods made available, or there may not. They still would be burdens on travelers that do not at present exist. That should be clear to you. There will likely be no benefit in terms of actual security, either - no one in this thread has agreed with Bush’s assertion that there will.
So we have definable negative consequences for the US and its neighbors, although the precise extent is discussable (and much less rudely than you’ve done so thus far). There are no definable positive benefits that anyone here accepts as real. Your reasons for not joining in the deploring of this move are, then, subject to others’ speculation, are they not? Care to elaborate for us instead?
Elvis, if the regulations currently publicized are only proposed, you’re not in a good position to claim the situation will be so terrible, now are you?
Part of the hassle of getting a passport is the wait–about six weeks for regular or you can pay $60 more and get expedited service of two weeks if it’s an emergency. I cen definitely see it cutting down on any trips people don’t plan two months in advance.
It happens as advertised, and therefore will be as bad as the Dopers think. No benefits, significant costs.
It won’t happen at all, and we’ll stay as insecure as the Bushies claim (no, strike that from the list of possibilities, they won’t/can’t back down).
Something in between, as yet undefined (but still clear enough to you and John to get you up on your hind legs and demand that others provide evidence against), still useless but still with costs that are even less defined than with the passport proposal. Still requires Bush to back down, notice.
John, the insistence that this prospective middle ground is not only possible but likely, as well as acceptable, is the product of your own imagination. Provide your own evidence or think harder before posting about it, m’kay? Hell, even before the evidence, provide your own definition if you want any real discussion.
Now, how can anyone with a claimed libertarian orientation, or even a more-inchoate but more-common “get government off our backs” orientation, or even anyone versed in cost-benefit analysis, not oppose this? Is there another possibility than reflexive partisanship?
I think that estimate is padded; I got mine renewed a couple of years ago, and it took less than 3 weeks door to door. The initial application, way back when (sheesh, is it really 16 years ago already?) took 2 weeks door to door. Of course, it probably takes longer in spring and summer, when everyone is planning vacations. How many people really take their first trip outside the U.S. on less than 3 weeks’ notice?
Of course, I really doubt that requiring passports for international travel is going to deter much of anybody from much of anything.
That is one mighty typo of mine, and I’m glad I didn’t do that at work.