When life gives you lemmings... ([info]danjite) wrote in [info]expats,
2006-11-05 09:08:00


"The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (HSA) has proposed that (as of January 14) all airlines, cruise lines-even fishing boats-be required to obtain clearance for each passenger they propose taking into or out of the United States."

Even if said passenger is a citizen.

Here is the only link I could find to this story.

Here is a lengthy response to the Proposal by a public watchdog group.

Link to the US Government Regulations Website.

Anybody hear anything about this? Having been involved in writing responses to proposals in the past, I know that the one at the second link above was not written on a whim.

As this would be a Homeland Security "Rule", does that mean that such a policy would not have to go through the lawmaking process?
Could such a policy just be enacted by HSA, or does this have to go through Congress?
What effect would this have on lead times for individual planning international travel?
Tags: politics

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    switch

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

     
    Help
  • 18 comments

[info]lizr0221

November 5 2006, 02:36:54 UTC 5 years ago

What does clearance for each passenger mean exactly? It sounds harmless to me in that tiny sentence. LOL.

Seriously, what "clearance" do they get now compared to what they want to get after Jan 14?

[info]chiller2

November 5 2006, 02:58:02 UTC 5 years ago

With US land borders as porous as they are this is no more worthwhile than removing a nail file from Granny Miggins before she flies to the US. The crooks and jihad crew will just pop in via Mexico or Canada.

[info]paisleychick

November 5 2006, 18:40:53 UTC 5 years ago

Starting in January 2008, all travel to Mexico and Canada will require a US Passport.

[info]chiller2

November 6 2006, 04:47:55 UTC 5 years ago

What would anyone from a country other than the US do if they wanted to go to Mexico or Canada? A lot of international flights to these destinations hub through the US but I don't think you really meant to put US in that sentence did you?

As I read it, it is actually saying travel between the US and {Canada|Mexico|etc} requires *a* valid passport, not a US one. Sure the US can dictate who travels between the US and these countries but that is as far as their jurisdiction goes. They can't tell these other countries who they can and can't accept from non US sources.

Thus I think my original point is still valid. If some anti-US nutjob wanted to fly into Canada or somewhere in south America, travel up (or down) through the poorly protected borders they could with little bother, so all the above does is make travelling in and out of the US even more of a headache for the rest of us.

[info]chiller2

November 6 2006, 04:55:16 UTC 5 years ago

That said, that the US could scoop up anyone passing through is quite scary I agree! :(

[info]danjite

November 6 2006, 09:08:00 UTC 5 years ago

The US has been doing that for years.

I have a friend who was travelling to Canada from Australia with a stop in Hawaii. No trasfer, just a stop.

She was taken off the plane, interrogated and sent back to Australia without explanation.

Or, if you prefer, the Canadian Citizen taken off a plane in New York and sent to Syria to be tortured.

...and thousands of others we will never hear about.

[info]paisleychick

November 6 2006, 05:40:35 UTC 5 years ago

I'm sorry, I mispoke - what I meant was that from now on, US citizens will need a passport to travel to Mexico and Canada, whereas before we could just go with our driver's licenses before. This will mean that the borders will be more closely monitored and people won't be able to cross as easily. Plus, they're building that fantastic fence - that's sure to keep them out, right? /sarcasm.

[info]catyak

November 5 2006, 09:49:43 UTC 5 years ago

So if I'm visiting the US and someone has screwed up my exit clearance and they won't let me leave, aer they going to (a) pay my hotel bill and (b) compensate me for loss of earnings at home? No? Didn't think so.

I thought only backwards third-world and Soviet-style dictatorships required exit clearance.

D

[info]danjite

November 6 2006, 04:21:31 UTC 5 years ago

Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China, Albania, Cuba and a few others of note.

[info]articulate_ink

November 5 2006, 14:26:18 UTC 5 years ago

Stalin drinks a banana-republic milkshake, and burps. Should he get a new set of iron curtains to go with that freshly painted Berlin wall now gracing the border between El Paso and Ciudad Juarez? American Airlines is the new Aeroflot. This randomness has been brought to you by the Department of Homeland Insecurity.

[info]danjite

November 9 2006, 12:17:22 UTC 5 years ago

American is still better than Aeroflot.

But it sucks compared to any SE Asian airline.

Do you know the border between El Paso and Juarez? When I was last through a couple years ago it was a cheap labor zone for America. Justr walk across the bridge to the US and there wasn't any real border enforcement until you get to the North end of Paso.

[info]lidenskab

November 5 2006, 14:52:08 UTC 5 years ago

You know it won't go through the proper lawmaking channels..

[info]paisleychick

November 5 2006, 18:39:10 UTC 5 years ago

It doesn't have to - it would be an executive order and not need any congressional oversight or voting. According to John Gilmore: "Rick and Wildsoda, these proposed rules are all Executive Branch administrative actions. None of them would require Congressional approval. Welcome to the modern bureaucratic state."

[info]paisleychick

November 5 2006, 18:58:46 UTC 5 years ago

You are the second person to write about this in two days and I haven't heard anything before this. I know John Gilmore personally and know his struggle to get the government to come clean about where on the books it says that we need identification to travel. According to the government, the law is secret and they can't really point to it, but you must obey it, and everyone just assumes that it's there and complies.

I downloaded the pdfs (Federal Registrar and the comments) and really don't like where this is headed. I too have been involved in writing comments to the government in response to a proposal (on copyright stuff) and know that this is not done lightheartedly. In looking over the Federal Registrar is looks like the passenger manifesto needs to be submitted before takeoff, whereas now it's submitted 60 mins after. I don't know how they're going to check everyone in an hour on every flight and every ship. If they're checking against the "no fly list" then a lot of people are going to be screwed because that list doesn't really work.

One of the things though that gives me a little hope is that this would go against the privacy laws in Europe and would halt all airline travel between Europe and the US. This is according to anylsis in the comments filed (page 3). "Since both the current rules and the proposed rules are incompatible with current European Union privacy and data protection laws, their retention or adoption would make it impossible for airlines to operate direct flights between the USA and the E.U. without violating the laws of one or both jurisdictions, and would thus require an enormously disruptive and costly cessation of such flights." So, hopefully things will change before they become rule!

[info]danjite

November 6 2006, 04:24:03 UTC 5 years ago

We are clearly in the same camp, know some of the same folk and hold some of the same thoughts.

Adding you to my fl- salutations.

I am an alarmist.

So was Paul Revere.

[info]danjite

November 9 2006, 12:18:39 UTC 5 years ago

I still havent heard or seen of this elsewhere. I did find out that the airlines are wildly agin it, though, and the response deadline has been moved back past January.

[info]iluvhyperboles

November 6 2006, 01:04:04 UTC 5 years ago

as far as I know, anything written by the friends of liberty is quite exaggerated. Of course, there will be some security clearances...i doubt it will be like this though.

[info]paisleychick

November 8 2006, 03:46:20 UTC 5 years ago

Of course it is very wise to take things on the intartubes with a grain of salt, so download and read the pdfs - the actual sources are really scary. These are proposed rule changes, and have not gone into effect, but it will be interesting to see how the rules do finally read come January.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…