9/11 Panel Urges Firmer Security Grip(trip to Mexico would require a passp

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-homeland29jul29.story

9/11 Panel Urges Firmer Security Grip(trip to Mexico would require a passport)
Scans of air passengers for explosives and other measures urged by the commission could cost billions and encroach on some liberties.

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — From setting federal standards for driver's licenses to requiring air passengers to pass through elaborate bomb-detection machines, the report of the Sept. 11 commission contains more than a dozen recommendations that would significantly affect the daily lives of ordinary people.<snip>

President Bush might soon adopt some of the security recommendations by executive order — possibly including a proposal that border and transportation security agencies develop a common strategy for screening travelers.

But the commission's blueprint for domestic security could encroach on some liberties now taken for granted.

A spur-of-the-moment trip to Canada or Mexico without a passport might become a thing of the past. "Americans should not be exempt from carrying … passports or otherwise enabling their identities to be securely verified when they enter the United States," the report said.

Other recommendations — notably an overhaul of the formula for distributing federal domestic security grants to the states — carry a steep political price. The current formula, which is considered generous to rural areas at the expense of urban centers, would be replaced by one that would allocate money based on likely threats and vulnerabilities.<snip>

[HuckleB]

1. Hmm. This will be interesting to follow.

The tourist industry sure isn't going to like this, but, then, I wonder if forcing Americans to get passports won't mean that more of them will end up travelling abroad, and getting out in the world a bit more. That sure wouldn't hurt anyone in this country.

[Tempest]

2. First step to a national ID card

Second step will be implanted chips.

[UTUSN]

3. Or O'REILLY's Dream of Militarizing the Mexican Border

Not only will the tourist industry not "like" it, it will be economically DEVASTATING to the borders. And it ain't helping "security" that much.

[HuckleB]

5. I don't buy this slippery slope stuff.

It's brought up by all sides to keep so much good from happening in this world. It's facetious at best.

[Tempest]

6. Where have we heard that before?

In your first post you make the statement:

"I wonder if forcing Americans to get passports... That sure wouldn't hurt anyone in this country."


Do you remember the yellow star of David Germany required the Jews to wear before the war?

You may not buy the "slippery slope stuff", but history teaches us that it does exist.

[HuckleB]

9. Same old slippery slope nonsense. Thanks, but no thanks.

Been there, done that. You and I both know you're playing an emotional card without basis in reason. Comparing the situation with the Jews under the Nazis to Americans having to possess passports to travel, just like the rest of the world, is absolutely bizarre.

There is no logical link between the two, between the reasons for the two, etc... etc... etc...

You just showed why slippery slope is such a dangerous, emotional ploy.

On edit: So... I take it you've never traveled anywhere outside of the US, Canada and Mexico for fear of possessing a passport?

[Tempest]

11. You can think what you want

Germany, Chile, Panama and other countries are proof enough.


"I take it you've never traveled anywhere outside of the US, Canada and Mexico for fear of possessing a passport?"

Apparently you're missing the whole point.

[HuckleB]

13. No, I'm not missing any point.

Context means everything, and you're offering a slippery slope "worry" that is so far out of the context of the situation, that it's meaningless to the situation. And, if you're so worried about passports, then, clearly, you would never get one, right? Or are you missing the point?

Well, rhetorical questions aside, history can be used and misused, and you are misusing it in this situation to offer an outlandish "concern" based on events that do not compare to this proposal.

[CJCRANE]

19. What about...

just about every other country in the world where you need a passport to travel outside its borders?

[Trillo]

20. I believe I've read that it was a

closely held belief of our forefathers that the right to travel freely was one of the standards used to judge the freeness of a country.

Just because a fee for a 10-year passport is now reasonable (in cost), I think I can argue that fees for driver's licenses were much less expensive when I was young. There's no reason to believe that the passport "business" won't grow into another government "profit center."

Gee, do ya think we can get the *local* fire department to issue them? That way it would be convenient for most people to locate an issuing office.

[HuckleB]

26. So you think special privileges are OK?

Why should someone with family in Great Britain have to pay for a passport when someone with family in Mexico does not? I've always found this to be a strange situation for the US, and it's greatly unfair to those who travel to places other than Mexico and Canada, etc...

[Trillo]

28. That's quite a diversion. Deliberate?

[HuckleB]

31. Please explain.

[Trillo]

30. So far as I know, as a U.S. citizen,

I only have some (very little) input into U.S. laws. I can appeal to my legislator. Further, I don't know of *any* influence I have over laws of any other country.

I'm reminded of a saying my sister always hammered into my young mind: "Just because everyone else jumps off a cliff, doesn't mean you have to follow them." (It was a metaphor)

[HuckleB]

32. If you're so powerless, why bother saying or writing anything at all?

Why come to DU? Why not just ignore it all from the word go?

And what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

[Trillo]

39. If you can't figure out the relevance of needing a passport versus not,

I'm quite certain I don't have the ability to explain it to you.

[HuckleB]

42. In other words, you're not even really sure why you're up in arms,

are you?

Thanks for clarifying that for us.

Reality sure does take a bite out of a good tirade, don't it?

:eyes:

[Trillo]

43. I'm sorry to hear you're on a tirade. I'm not. :)

[HuckleB]

45. Denial is the first step to recovery.

:)

[Trillo]

47. Projection, eh?

Why not start by projecting an answer to the question I posed in post #20. It was a simple question, and only one question was posed.

You replied to the post, and fired back questions you wanted answered. Failure to answer a simple question kind of seems like your problem with denial, if you ask me!

You already established you're on a tirade. Did you ever intend to answer my simple question?

So far your words suggest the answer is no.

[HuckleB]

51. Your "simple question" was rhetorical game playing.

Which you've now taken through the roof. You haven't discusses with me seriously the entire time, and now you want to accuse me of what?

As we both know, it's you who's on the tirade. There I said it. I didn't think it really needed saying, as your posts clearly show it. Unfortunately, you can't see through your tirade to the lack of logic behind your anger or to the logic and context I've offered here. That's truly too bad for you and for those who come across you.

Got games? Yeah, that's all you've got. You and I both know it.

:eyes:

[Trillo]

56. It was a reasonable question. Still waiting for an answer.... nt

[HuckleB]

61. You're clearly frustrated.

Your fury got stumped by reality, so you went back to find some way to keep the game a going. Nice try, but, as I said in my last post, we both know the reality of the situation.

Next time you ought to think through the matter before simply reacting. Doing so can avoid a lot of wasted time and embarassment.

Goodbye.

[Occulus]

59. There are things called adjacent borders

and people who live close to them.

[HuckleB]

62. Wow! I didn't know that.

Have these always existed?

:eyes:

[happyslug]

49. Patrick Henry liked his freedom of Movement .

Old Pat believed in freedom of Movement, he always like the ability to escape into Maryland or North Carlina if old George Washington and his cronies ever decided to have old Pat arrested (George Washington and Patrick Henry hated each other AND EACH OTHER'S POLITICS. IT shows you HOW stupid the British were during the Revolution in not getting one or the other on their Side).

Patrick Henry's biggest objection to the US Constitution was the Full faith and Credit Clause and the Clause requiring one state to turn over alleged criminals from another state to that other state. These restriction on a person's freedom to escape such persecution (and I mean persecution NOT prosecution) was way Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution and even the Bill of Rights did not satisfy him (Patrick Henry called it a list of Rights "Never evened threatened").

[HuckleB]

52. Good for Patrick Henry.

The world has changed a few million ways since he died, so let's move on, shall we?

[Zorra]

69. Yes. So by the same logic that make Patrick Henry's words no longer

valid, can the same thing not be said of the Constitution?

"The world has changed a few million ways since he died, so let's move on, shall we?"

The world has changed a few million ways since the Constitution was written also.

[HuckleB]

78. I guess you've never heard of the Amendment Process or the Supreme Court?

The two main ways that the Constitution and our laws stay with the times?

Interesting. It appears that you are interested in politics, so how is it that you don't know about these parts of the US scene?

[Zorra]

82. My question was: Is the Constitution no longer valid since so much time

has passed since it was written?

I did not mention anything about amendments, and yes, I am aware of the amendment process.

Valid: Founded on truth or fact.

You have sometimes given rhetorical and indirect responses when you have responded to other posters in this thread, and sometimes responded to other posters by mocking them or their ideas in some direct or subtle way. Why is that? You even go so far as to infer that you have more common sense than the rest of us "ignorant" DU'ers:

"Wow! Common sense! How'd that get on this board?"

(BTW, the borders that I have crossed at are Juarez, Mexicali, Tecate, and Tijuana. What borders do you cross at where you are asked for identification each time you enter Mexico? There are a large number of American ex-patriates in Mexico and they inform me that they are also seldom or never asked for identification when entering Mexico.)

It makes it very difficult to have a productive discussion when someone is using diversionary tactics instead of giving direct and logical responses relative to the points of a discussion. You sometimes dismiss ideas as invalid without explaining why they are invalid when someone is pursuing a line of thought, and although you may think you are "winning" an argument, it appears to me that posters stop responding to you because they recognize that the content of your responses are rhetorical, deliberately do not address the line of thought that they are pursuing, and are often derisive to the poster.

Recognizing Propaganda Techniques
and Errors of Faulty Logic

Name calling: This techniques consists of attaching a negative label to a person or a thing. People engage in this type of behavior when they are trying to avoid supporting their own opinion with facts. Rather than explain what they believe in, they prefer to try to tear their opponent down.

http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/AS/404.htm

[HuckleB]

84. It's time to look in the mirror, my friend.

What you just did to me is exactly what you accuse me of doing. Nevermind that I've done nothing that many other posters, including yourself, haven't also done. Talk about the pot calling the kettle...

Sheesh.

:eyes:

In fact, you and I both know that your post about the Constitution compared to a single quote of a "founding father" was little more than game playing. You and I both know that you were not engaging in genuine, honest conversation with that routine.

Get a mirror, fast!

Like I said, SHEESH!

Sometimes it is the hypocrisy.

And if you've crossed Tijuana without have to get in line and give ID, perhaps you can explain how you did that legally? And don't give me some line about expats. That's Internet nonsense, and game playing, and you know it. It's time for you to show some honesty rather than continue to play games. Where's the process that allows you to go through without documentation? Surely, it's availabe online at some state department site?

[psychopomp]

40. Passport/=Slippery slope

What is amazing is that US citizens can leave the country w/o a passport in the first place. They are international boundaries, after all.

More people having passports is a good thing, imho.

[HuckleB]

44. Wow! Common sense! How'd that get on this board?

:)

[Tempest]

12. The "slippery slope" has hit Japan

Japan: Schoolkids to be tagged with RFID chips

http://asia.cnet.com/newstech/systems/0,39001153,39186467,00.htm

[HuckleB]

14. Wow! I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

:eyes:

Now, can you logically put that use of such chips -- something I don't approve of -- into a genuine context of this discussion? I'd really like to see that.

[Tempest]

18. I have been

I'm sorry you missed it.

[HuckleB]

25. Something tells me that even you know that's not true.

You've done nothing but misuse history and attempt to connect things that have nothing to do with one another. You've created some very interesting fictions by doing so, but you've shown no logical framework for anyone to think that the slippery slope that you choose to fear is something that anyone should spend time worrying about.

Anyway, thanks for the giggle with this last post of yours.

[Bridget Burke]

15. This will hurt plenty of people in this country--and others.

Down along the border, many people cross daily. I'm talking about legal crossings for shopping, etc., that are part of the economy & tradition of the border communities.

And, no, I don't have a passport. I plan to get one but haven't so far. Not from a lack of desire to travel, but because of family & work obligations. And lack of extra funds.

[HuckleB]

17. So it will cost a little time and the fee to get a passport.

Which lasts ten years. We are not talking about a prohibitive cost, by any means. In most places, a drivers license costs more per year.

[Bridget Burke]

21. Not so much money to somebody with yuppie hobbies!

A bit more to others.

[HuckleB]

24. Sounds like someone's making assumptions.

Why? You don't like a little perspective being brought to the situation?

As it stands, those who do business and have family in Canada and Mexico get special status compared to those who do business and have family in other countries. That's never been fair, so are you defending an unfair special status at the expense of others?

Hmmmmm. I wonder. Boy, those assumptions sure are killers, aren't they?

[Jack_DeLeon]

70. I disagree...

it is intirely fair that we have loser restrictions with our neighbors than with people who arent our neighbors.

[HuckleB]

79. Please explain why.

Making a statement doesn't make that statement true.

[progressivebydesign]

34. I'm not sure when you got a passport last..

..but the cost is pretty high now. You have to pay for photos, and each passport is at least 70 dollars... Driver's licenses are usually around 20 or 30.

[HuckleB]

37. When was the last time you got a driver's license?

Not to mention registered your vehicle?

A first time passport costs $8.50 a year. Renewed passports cost $5.50 per year. A drivers license at $30 for four years -- which is cheap, very cheap, thus very hard to come by -- is $7.50 a year, and those costs don't include having to go back to get it renewed every few years, etc... which takes time and money.

[Zorra]

41. But wouldn't implanted tracking chips be easier and more effective?

Same principle, only more sensible, in my view of your logic. If you are going to force people to get passports, why not make the identification process more effective?

I'm full on against this myself, but, what do you think?

(I have a passport and travel often, but only because I do not limit my travel to Mexico and Canada)

[HuckleB]

46. No.

They're certainly not easier, and one can make a very good argument that they would be less effective, as there are far too many assumptions being made about devices that are apt to fail at times, not to mention be breached by good counterfeits.

Anyone, no one in real power is seriouly calling for such chips, because they know that they'd never be accepted. This slippery-slope nonsense is just a lame excuse at this point in time, as it usually is, when this argument is brought forth.

Since you know that you have to have a passport to go to every other country in the world, why should there be an exception for Mexico and Canada? Sorry, but that sounds like special privileges for some over others, and I don't see any justification for it.

[Zorra]

48. Simple. We should not need a passport to enter Mexico or Canada

because their governments don't require them for entry into their countries by US citizens. They need American tourist money, and they do not want to put unnecessary obstructions on their border neighbors.

Why should a passport be needed to enter those countries if they don't require them?

Do you think the US should dictate that those countries should require passports for US citizens to cross their borders?

[HuckleB]

53. Nice try.

But that's all changing due to a number of international agreements, nevermind that they're not the only governments who could give a rats ass about our passports as long as they get the money.

It's clear that you want special privileges for some. That' s incredibly unAmerican to me. But, hey, who am I to want things to be on an even playing field? Who am I to want to speed up entry ways by having an easy-to-check ID rather than hundreds of types of multiple IDs? Why that would be crazy?

[Zorra]

55. Nice try? You are talking out of your ass. I LIVE in Mexico. I have

never, ever, in maybe 70 times of crossing, been stopped at the border crossing into Mexico. I have always passed right through.

Speed up entryways? Bullshit.

Obviously, you have had little experience crossing into Mexico.

And furthermore, you can keep your desire for the repression of my liberty with you in the US. I moved down here, to a country that is still free like my country used to be, because I was disgusted at the thought of living in a dictatorship that is rapidly becoming a totalitarian police state.

Nice try.

Next.

[HuckleB]

63. Good for you.

I've gone into Mexico a good 50 times in my life, and have always had to have my ID, etc... checked. So what border are you going through? And should you be going through it?

Yes, this would speed up entry for most folks. Your fury and ranting doesn't change that.

Like I said, nice try.

:eyes:

[hang a left]

72. Except fro the people that live with in close proximity to either the

Mexican borders or the the Canadian border to seek affordable medical, dental, and medicines.

[HuckleB]

80. So now we're mixing problems?

Strange. I guess we don't want to make things better, either in health care or anything else.

[mbperrin]

4. That'll keep those dang Mexicans from hijacking more planes!

Right? That is what happened, Mexicans came across the border and did 911, right? If ONLY we had required all Americans going to Mexico to have passports, 911 wouldn't have happened, right?


I gotta get new glasses, cause I didn't see NOTHIN' about no Mexicans in the copy I read!

This'll keep them fellers from wadin' across and gettin' all the brain surgeon jobs away from white folk, too!

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

7. Caters to the Pharmaceutical companies...

... by putting up another literal roadblock to seniors seeking relief from the high costs for prescription drugs.

[saigon68]

60. "FUCK THE SENIORS" screamed the CHIMPANZEE (privately)

"They are whinning complainers-- who never bothered to save money while they were working to help themselves" he continued--


note this is the reublican theme to those seniors who have "MADE IT"--- Rove and his gang of Thugs know the poorest and destitute don't vote.

And besides that ----according to the chimp they have sinned against God because if they were more "worthy" they would be in a gated community in Boca Raton.

[SidDithers]

8. Does this go for Canadians entering the US too?

I've always, and I mean always, only used a birth certificate and photo drivers license to enter the US from Canada. If Americans will need a passport to get back into the US, will all foreign visitors will need one too?

Sid

(who's tailgating at the Bills/Jets on Nov 7, and will have to hurry to get his papers in order if the rules are changing)

[HuckleB]

10. I would imagine so, otherwise what's the point of such a plan?

[Lisa]

23. hm -- Canadian passports are only good for 5 years ...

Maybe this will add weight to arguments that we should cover longer periods. Are US passports still good for 10 years?

I confess that my passport expired a couple of years ago and I haven't gone through the hassles of getting it renewed. I'm supposed to be going to the US next month -- along with the birth cert and drivers license, I'll take that void passport too, just in case.

[HuckleB]

27. Yes, still 10 years in the US.

I sure have a lot less trouble getting into and out of Canada when I just show my passport, as opposed to bringing the birth certificate along, which is just so dang unwieldy, anyway. But, yeah, I'm not sure why Canadians must renew every five years. Seems like a waste of time to me.

By the way, if you like Thrillers (novels), check out a book called "Dark Places" by your fellow countryman, Jon Evans. Good, fun stuff.

Salut!

[Trillo]

16. We the people...

It seems to me that requiring passports to travel for short trips out of the country, say a day or so in time spent there, analogizes to taxing all goods that enter and exit the country. It seems unfair to allow corporations to move their money and their goods freely across national boundaries, without people being able to also move freely.

We've seen the jobs sent to overseas locations, and their goods reenter, and are living at a time when "free trade" is the buzzword of the riech-wing, where free speech is redefined to legally mean "paid speech", and those with the most dollars are granted the largest microphone and speakers.

Welcome to fascist America, where "we the people" are the enemy.

[Zorra]

22. Read: 9/11 Panel Urges Firmer Grip On US Citizens.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately"

Benjamin Franklin

Everything that these people are doing is based on the need to provide security for multi-national corporate interests throughout the world. Yes, American citizens do face a genuine threat from terrorism. But we would not face this threat if multi-national corporations were not using the American military as a world wide police force to protect multi-national corporate interests.

Our liberty is rapidly being taken from us in the name of keeping multi-national corporations safe throughout the world. Our nation is currently in the process of being locked down like a gigantic prison.

Multi-national corporations should be responsible for, and pay for, their own security in other nations. The people of the US are not responsible for protecting the interests of corporations that operate for profit outside of our borders.

Corporate imperialism is primarily responsible for the rise of terrorism. There would be no reason for terrorists to make attacks on American citizens on American soil if corporate imperialism was not giving terrorists the motivation to attack us. They are not trying to invade our country in order to take over our land and subjugate us. They are trying to prevent multi-national corporate interests from controlling their nations and cultures.

If someone else has another logical, factual reason for why Middle Eastern Islamic terrorists wish to cause harm to the people of the US, please explain it to me, so that I can accept the loss of my freedom as something necessary.

I am not willing to trade my liberty in the service of protecting corporations that operate in other countries. Mexico and Canada are not locking down their countries because of the fear of terrorism. That is because their governments and militaries are not being used as an imperialist vehicle to protect multi-national corporations. Terrorists have no reason to attack Canada and Mexico.

US imperialist policy is causing we citizens of the US to lose our freedom and live in fear of our lives.

Our government could solve this problem by refusing to provide a worldwide police force whose primary mission is to protect multi-national corporate interests. Let them hire their own private security forces, so terrorists will have no reason to attack American citizens that are not engaged in the service of imperialistic multi-national corporations.

The IWR and the Patriot Act were hastily passed by Congress due to fear or the motivation to serve corporate interests. We have experienced the consequences of both of these hastily passed legislations.

If we allow the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to become law without careful, serious consideration by Congress about the permanent loss of our civil liberties, we will regret it, and so will our children, who will never live in the free America that we once lived in before the selection of George W. Bu$h, CEO and servant of corporate America.

I am not saying that we do not need to protect ourselves. I am not saying that the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission are completely invalid. I'm saying that we need to act on these recommendations correctly, without loss of liberty, and based on the best interests of the American people, and not the interests of multi-national corporations.

Perhaps our first move in considering the recommendations of the 9/11 commission should be to begin the process of partial troop withdrawal from foreign soil, beginning with Iraq, and letting multi-national corporations know that they are now responsible for providing their own security abroad.

If we remove the causes for terrorism, we will no longer have to treat it's symptoms. We will be safer, and will retain our liberty.

[atreides1]

35. I will not trade my Freedom for false Security

I for one will not trade my freedom for a sense of false security, it seems we had rules in place but it didn't stop the terrorist from getting into the country.

Nothing short of a total Police State will be able to prevent someone who wants to launch an attack from doing so, and even that's not a guarantee.

As for the fairness, I for one don't give a rat's a** about how unfair it is to other countries that require passports to enter the US, or an American has to have a passport to enter a country overseas.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the EU pass a law/resolution that passports are no longer needed for travel for citizens of the EU.
I mean if we're talking fairness here then perhaps the 9/11 Commission should require that the EU go back to requiring passports for EU travel.

I live in Tucson, now I can drive down to Nogales,AZ and park my car on the US side of the border and walk to Nogales Mexico. This is the same for a Belgian who wants to go to France, I see nothing wrong with that. But for me to go to Belgium, or for a Belgian to come here
we need passports.

Myself I've done travelling while serving in the US Army. now the only place I really want to go and see is the UK, and when I decide to go I'll apply for a passport, but the lack of a passport should not keep me from visiting a country that shares a border with the US.

I will not trade my freedom, if people here want to do that, and think that they are safer, feel free, but guess what you'll have to take out those like me, and we will be trying to do the same to you.

Like the Founders I am willing to give the ultimate sacrifice to keep my freedom, anyone else, or do you really think that a piece of paper is going to keep you safe from terrorist.

[sadiesworld]

65. You're willing to give your life...

to avoid getting a freakin' passport? :eyes:

[Zorra]

68. Our liberty is being taken from us incrementally. A little at a time.

This is just another small step in the process. But the process is accelerating. If they trash our liberties all at once, they would not be able to pull it off, because even republicans would begin to suspect that something was terribly wrong.

Do you know that, if you are just walking down the street, minding your own business, a police officer can demand that you identify yourself, and if you refuse to identify yourself, that officer can arrest you, on the basis that s/he suspects that you may be a criminal, and have you put in jail? You can be arrested, jailed and convicted with no evidence pointing to the fact that you have committed a criminal act. Refusing to identify yourself is now a criminal act:

WASHINGTON – US citizens do not enjoy a constitutional right to refuse to reveal their identity when requested by police.

In what may become a major boost to US law enforcement and antiterrorism efforts, the US Supreme Court Monday upheld a Nevada law that makes it a criminal offense for anyone suspected of wrongdoing to refuse to identify himself to police.

Civil libertarians see the decision as a significant setback. And it remains unclear to what extent it may open the door to the issuing of national identification cards or widespread identity operations keyed to terrorist profiling at bus terminals, train stations, sports stadiums, and on city streets.

"We know identification continues to be one of the key demands of government agencies involved in homeland security," he says. " - depending on how broad it is - could open the door to new demands for identification."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html

It is an incremental process.

The terrorists, (whoever they are), have won.

They have succeeded in frightening the people of the US into accepting the loss of their civil liberties for reasons of "security".

The comprimising of our courts, media, and our electoral process, the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Dept. of "Homeland Security, are major steps towards the completion of the PNAC corporate run Bu$h administration's plan for achieving totalitarianism in the US.

Their goal is not the security of American citizens, it is to prevent American citizens from being able to overthrow corporate rule, democratically, or otherwise.

Class warfare.

[sadiesworld]

77. I thought we were talking about passports.

:shrug:

[Zorra]

81. The point is this: At this time, I do not have to have a passport in

order to enter into Canada or Mexico from the US, and vice versa.

(This argument is theroetical, because I already have a passport.)

If a law passes that forces me to have to purchase a passport, this will be another in an ever increasing list of identification document requirements imposed upon me by the government which are required for me to work, transact business, travel, and move about freely without fear of arrest or detainment.

Liberty: the state of being free.

The requirement of having to have a passport to travel to and from Mexico and Canada does not exist at this time. When this becomes a requirement by the government, I will have to take the time and spend the money to get a passport. I don't care to do this. At this time, I am quite comfortable with not needing a passport to visit these countries, and already visit them without any problems with the identification required of me at this time.

I consider the requirement for me to get a passport as another infringement by the government upon the liberties that I currently have. I've already had too many of my liberties restricted by the government. Although the requirement to purchase and carry a passport is only a small ingringement of my liberty, the progressive accumulation of infringements upon my liberties is getting tiresome and I resent them as part of a long term insidious and cumulative effort to control me and restrict my Constitutional freedoms.

The enactment of the Patriot Act was part of this progression also. If we continue to let our liberties, no matter how small an issue, to be taken from us without challenge, we will eventually end up with no liberty at all.

[sadiesworld]

83. I see a fairly bright line b/t requiring passports at borders

and some of the other (interstate) concerns you have expressed. I'll have to join you at the next level...if it comes to that. :)

[Fear]

64. Nice post! - thanks!

[alarimer]

66. absolutely

I agree with every word of this. I live in south Texas and some people make border crossings every day to work, shop, visit family, etc. It should not be made more difficult for these people to do that. $85 is a good chunk of change for some (like seniors) who may be on a fixed income, plus it takes months to get a passport. These recommendations will do nothing to actually stop terrorist; they will only stop tourism.

[demgurl]

29. I don't think I am dumb but am I missing something?

How is a US citizen having to have a passport going to make this country safer? This is put out by the 9/11 commission, right? So they must think that will make us safer. I am not trying to be a smart ass, but how will this make our country safer? I must be missing something.

[Kellanved]

36. pretty simple: it is an international agreement

The US was the proposing nation for new passport security features (ICAO) . Now that most nations are ready to implement those features, the US has to do so as well.
Besides: I totally fail to see any harm in mandatory passports; it even might be the only hope to fight identity theft.

[shanti]

75. and many people CANNOT get passports

because of financial obligations, such as child support.

i think that this is just a ploy to keep us INSIDE. if we had a draft, two ouitlets, mexico and canada, would dry up instantly.

[progressivebydesign]

33. Canada is already a hassle to enter and exit!

Even with our passports, they really make you feel as though you're doing something wrong.. when ALL you want to do is spend some damn tourist money in THEIR country! On the way back in, last time, we had the worst experience... one car ahead of us, someone was tagged for something. As we idled, waiting for our turn to show passports from our car window. I noticed many police officers suddenly converging from behind us, guns drawn. Officers we quietly informing each car to turn off their engines. I was in a total panic mode. I kept thinking.. if they all start shooting, we're stuck in this car 20 feet behind the suspects in their car. There was a lot of yelling a lot of guns drawn. The first suspect got out of the car just fine, but there appeared to be a language barrier, because the second suspect didn't get out of the car right, and the officers nearly lost it. What I thought would be an easy pass back into the U.S., after a long weekend vacation, turned into a nightmare scenario. I don't see how they could make it any harder.

[HuckleB]

38. That's not our experience.

We cross the border somewhere between four and eight times a year, and since we got smart and started bringing our passports, it's been fast and easy and courteous. And, if everyone had passports, rather than a variety of ID types, it would likely go even faster.

[Zorra]

71. Current border wait time entering into Canada at Peace Arch Crossing

I have had some bad experiences crossing into Canada also. But not always. I think it is a matter of timing and the individual border agent that you deal with.


http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/ATIS/index.htm

[happyslug]

50. I wish they get it over and give us all a National ID

For all practical purposes we already have one (Your Driver's License, do NOT try to go anywhere without it, even if you are walking).

The worse part about this "National ID" is that there was NO National Debate on it, no Debate on what it can be and can not be used for (Example if a Picture Driver's License is to help a police officer ID you if he stops you, why do I have to show the SAME LICENSE to cash a check?)

All this proposal is to upgrade your Drivers License ID to be also you passport (and soon afterward required to get on any form of Transportation).

I wish we in the US would have an honest Debate on the Pluses and Minus of having a National ID, but it looks like no one wants one and are avoiding it by things like this proposal to have a passport to go to Canada and Mexico (and soon afterward to cross state lines, "we have to prevent Al Queda using out Interstate highway system to transport their suicide bomber around").

[HuckleB]

54. Umm. Why are you talking about something that has nothing to do...

with the topic at hand?

Why are so many people so obsessed with slippery-slopes that don't even connect?

It's just bloody bizarre.

[Trillo]

57. happyslug wrote:

"(Example if a Picture Driver's License is to help a police officer ID you if he stops you, why do I have to show the SAME LICENSE to cash a check?)"

I believe the answer is that the corporation is the "new" police, let's call them the "intelligence" gathering arm (tracking purchases, collecting various data, etc.), the "old" real police are just the muscle arm.

Recently, I went into one of the mega-electronics stores to buy a trackball, and the cashier wanted to not only see my ID, she wanted it removed from my wallet so she could pass it through her mag-reader. That's exactly what the police want to do, and I find it more than rude when coming from a merchant.

I never shop at stores that treat me the way police treat people. Haven't been back to that store since, and have no plans to ever return. Whoops ... I digressed.

One of the things that disturbed me most in this article is the statement that Executive Order be used to make the change. Doesn't that subvert the whole constitutional purpose of the Legislative Branch (we the people)?

[ronabop]

58. Stupid, wrong, and insane.

Amount of 9-11 plane attacks that would have been stopped by this:0, zip. zilch. nada.

Amount lost by Mexico: Millions.
Amount lost by Canada: Millions
Amount lost by US: Millions

Passports don't control terrorists... what, are they going to stress that on their way to murdering thousands of people that they might have to actually forge papers? Well, gee, I guess they've never done *that* before. Right.

This is anti-immigrant insanity, plain and simple.

Of course, Kerry has now said he'll support *all* the recommendations, so it's moot here.

-Bop
edit: spelling

[sadiesworld]

67. What's up with all the extremist rhetoric over passports?

They are not especially expensive nor difficult to obtain. They're required for travel to other countries, why not Canada and Mexico? They WOULD be more difficult to forge than drivers licenses. They WOULD make travel to these countries easier and more efficient.

I see all these "give me liberty or give me death posts" and have to shake my head in wonderment. We're talking passports here, not full body cavity searches (or allowing the feds to research your reading habits for that matter).

Oh well, I guess this is just one of those times when I part company with some of my fellow DUers.

[tlcandie]

73. The nice thing about IDs, passports and the like...

Is that they are only good for law abiding citizens. Criminals, terrorists and such all have someone making their illegal ones, so this is pretty much a moot point.

I believe the US was into making Saudi passports on the sly not too long ago.

Reminds me of drugs and such. Make it illegal, it goes underground. Criminals, terrorists will find a way to get around the loopholes just like greedy corporations get around tax loopholes and legal loopholes.

There's always a way around the law. It's just how much you are willing to bend it before you feel you've crossed the line.

I tend to agree that until we change the MO of our military and corporations then no amount of security will matter. It seems to me that what caused all of this was greed and a lust for power/resources NOT security issues.

The FBI/CIA or whoever knew about the Saudis in Florida well beforehand. They are like this administration thinking they have their little game all in check, but they were check mated.

Take all our freedoms away and terrorism will still happen. Bad things will always happen no matter where you live.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

[shanti]

76. law abiding citizens....

like paying child support!!?

[Zorra]

74. Kick