Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

US Citizens To Require ''Clearance'' To Leave? 987

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the hotel-americana dept.
jo7hs2 writes "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has proposed a system which will in essence make it mandatory for you to have permission before leaving or entering the country, effectively putting everyone on a no-fly list unless the government says otherwise. Interestingly, the proposal does not seem to cover personal travel, only that on some sort of carrier like an airline or cruise vessel. While this certainly is concerning, it isn't exactly new, as a passport is already required for circumstances covered under the proposal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Citizens To Require ''Clearance'' To Leave?

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Last I checked (Score:3, Informative)

    by Southpaw018 (793465) * on Saturday November 04, 2006 @11:20AM (#16715625) Journal
    Not only that, but this provision requires you to request clearance upon every entrance/exit from the country. With a passport, you just need the passport. You don't have to get your 'papers in order' first.

    I call BS on jo7hs2.
  • by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Saturday November 04, 2006 @11:22AM (#16715653) Homepage
    ...that, of course, is the day you go to the polls and let these people know that all this stuff is A-OK with you.

    (credit to Jim Schutze for phrasing)
  • Economic effects (Score:4, Informative)

    by pubjames (468013) on Saturday November 04, 2006 @11:32AM (#16715779)

    Over here in Europe I am increasingly hearing people who say they don't want to travel to the USA at the moment, whether for tourism or business. The effect of this kind of thing on tourism would be fairly easy to measure, however the effect on business generally - if businessmen outside of the USA don't want to travel there - is impossible to know.

    I thought the Republicans were supposed to be "pro-business" - surely they can understand the potential negative consequences of this kind of thing? Having said that, they don't seem to be worried about the negative effects of their neanderthal foreign policies, so perhaps not.

  • Pre-election FUD (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dachannien (617929) on Saturday November 04, 2006 @11:39AM (#16715843)
    Okay, so we have a story on a political website ("Friends of Liberty") with a link only to published comments by another political website ("PapersPlease.org") concerning a proposal where the original RFP [gpo.gov] was posted July 14 of this year. Where was the outrage then, where was the irate Slashdot article then?

    Could it possibly be that this regulation would not have the effect that the far left claims that it would have?

    If you read the regulation proposal, what this regulation change would actually do is require manifests to be transmitted to US Customs before the aircraft pushes back from the gate, rather than 15 minutes after takeoff (which is the current regulation), so that DHS can have do-not-fly list passengers removed from the flight before it takes off rather than causing a possible situation in the air.

    This attempt at political chicanery on Slashdot's part is so transparent it's laughable.
  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Saturday November 04, 2006 @11:54AM (#16715987)

    I'm afraid I don't take these "Friends of Liberty" folks at face value. Their assertions are backed up by a volume of evidence found in similar conspiracy theories. NONE WHATSOEVER.

    Read the PDF [hasbrouck.org] listed at the bottom of the press release. The very first paragraph explains the source of their concerns:

    The Identity Project submits these comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published at 71 Federal Register 40035-40048 (July 14, 2006), docket number USCBP-2005-0003-0003, and the associated "Regulatory Assessment" published July 18, 2006 on the Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/ [regulations.gov] and docketed as USCBP-2005-0003-0005.

    In the guise of an NPRM alleged to propose a change only in the required timing of transmission of information already required to be provided to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the CBP has actually proposed a fundamental regulatory change with far-reaching (literally and figuratively) legal, policy, and logistical implications: The NPRM would replace a requirement for ex post facto notice to the CBP of information about who is on each vessel (ship or plane) with an unconstitutional system of prior restraint of international travel, entirely unauthorized by statute and inconsistent with the U.S. obligations embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    Here is the full docket in PDF format [regulations.gov] (took me a while to find it until I came across a Reddit comment that said to make sure you allow the search engine to search closed-for-comment documents...and when I did, it took the search engine a minute or more to find the document.)

  • Re:Slight difference (Score:3, Informative)

    by mark0 (750639) on Saturday November 04, 2006 @11:56AM (#16716015)
    That's why nobody checks passports as you depart.

    Not true. Airlines check your passport before you depart. They can be fined for delivering passengers that don't have the required documentation to enter the country of their destination. They check when you get your boarding pass and they check again as you board the plane.
  • Re:Last I checked (Score:4, Informative)

    by BewireNomali (618969) on Saturday November 04, 2006 @12:30PM (#16716373)
    this happened to me. my passport expired and i needed to travel out of the country asap. i was warned that reentry would be a bitch. it was.

    i work in film as a risk assessment consultant. i was detained for 6 hours upon return from filming in st. lucia. this was on a large film that exhibited this past year. a full background check was performed and I was interrogated by marshals at JFK under the watch of two national guardsmen with m-16s at the ready. i was told that as an "unemployed single multi-ethnic male under 30 without documents" that I essentially triggered all of their flags. I clearly wasn't unemployed - and a significant part of my time was spent explaining "consultant" to them. I was interrogated (pardon my ignorance in this) using a technique whereby I was asked the same question several times - basic questions like my date of birth and the names of my parents and the schools i went to, etc. They also asked questions like: "So how long did you spend in Brazil?" when it had already been established that I'd gone to st. lucia. many other questions were asked in this manner in rapid succession with several men staring intently at me, with another comparing my answers to something onscreen. Their voices were raised and stern; weapons were casually brandished. my frustration at being asked the same thing over and over without recourse was considered an act of "aggression" which according to them justified the brandishing of weapons.

    My laptop and pda were turned on and I presume given a thorough looking over. my cell phone was turned on and call lists were duplicated. apparently, they confirmed my information to grade school, apologized for the intrusion and sent me on my way, at which point the airline said they didn't know where my luggage was. another hour later, my luggage was "found" - with my bags clearly rifled through.

    There are some legal proceedings under way in regards to this action. the funny thing about this incident is that one of the international sales agents on this film was actually illegal here in the US at the time and he shares the last name of a famous currently incarcerated former mid-east leader. he expressed having a strong case of nerves whenever reentering, and was less than cool about it when we hit the arrival gates. we both hit the gates at the same time - i was stopped, and he breezed through without a second look. So in this instance, while I was apparently profiled in some way, the most obvious guy to profile in this situation was not.

         
  • Re:Uh, what? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Shelled (81123) on Saturday November 04, 2006 @02:07PM (#16717367)
    "Come on, slashdot. Treat us like adults."

    As you wish. The article cites one on PassportsPlease.org, a direct link from that article is to the World Privacy Forum's submitted objection to the change:

    "The Identity Project submits these comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    (NPRM) published at 71 Federal Register 40035-40048 (July 14, 2006), docket number
    USCBP20050003-0003, and the associated Regulatory Assessment published July 18, 2006 on the
    Web site at and docketed as USCBP-2005-0003-0005.
    In the guise of an NPRM alleged to propose a change only in the required timing of transmission
    of information already required to be provided to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
    the CBP has actually proposed a fundamental regulatory change with far-reaching (literally and
    figuratively) legal, policy, and logistical implications: The NPRM would replace a requirement for ex
    post facto notice to the CBP of information about who is on each vessel (ship or plane) with an
    unconstitutional system of prior restraint of international travel, entirely unauthorized by statute and
    inconsistent with the U.S. obligations embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
    Rights.
    Under the proposed rules, orders by the CBP to common carriers not to transport specific persons
    would not be based on restraining orders (injunctions) issued by competent judicial authorities. Instead,
    they would be based on an undefined, secret, administrative permission-to-travel (clearance) procedure
    subject to none of the procedural or substantive due process required for orders prohibiting or restricting
    the exercise of protected First Amendment rights. From the authority of law enforcement officers and
    agencies to enforce certain types of orders, once lawfully issued by competent judicial authorities, the
    NPRM would usurp for the CBP the authority to issue those orders on its own. Its as though the FBI
    were to construe its authority to maintain in the NCIC a list of persons for whose arrest warrants have
    been issued by competent judicial authorities, and execute those warrants, as authority for the FBI to
    issue and execute its own warrantless administrative arrest orders."


    As an adult, one apparently too lazy to click through a couple of cites, I expect you're capable of reading and understanding the gist of the objection. To help you along, it's another instance of killing democratic freedoms via deft and surgical manipulation of archane regulations. A bit like 'enemy combatant' writ small.
  • Re:Tuesday (Score:5, Informative)

    by Planesdragon (210349) <`su.enotsleetseltsac' `ta' `todhsals'> on Saturday November 04, 2006 @05:39PM (#16719079) Homepage Journal
    At every turn a good republican should ask if what they are doing helps the people and minimizes the control the government has over the people. They are clearly not doing the latter, and the former [is] arguable.

    No, not really.

    Your party has historically been for many things, but "small government" was never really one of them. It was just a way to say they were "anti-socialist" or "anti-welfare" without being negative. The party you describe would be against drug laws or outlawing abortion as much as it's against gun control.

    The left/right divide comes down to the division of Right and Proper -- the Right-wing desires the government to do that which is morally correct, while the left desires the government do that which is legally proper. there are, of course, other metrics you might use to divide the two, but "big government / small government" isn't one of them.

"Can you program?" "Well, I'm literate, if that's what you mean!"

Working...