U.S. card would be passport

[CHIMO]

WASHINGTON — The United States has released plans for a wallet-sized pass card that Americans could use instead of a passport to enter the country.

The card will cost US$10 for children and US$20 for adults, plus a US$25 execution fee.

Radio frequency identification technology to be read by machines at border crossings would link the card to a secure U.S. government database containing biographical data and a photograph, the State Department says.

There would be no personal information on the card itself.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1161079748033&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

Now what type of card will allow US citizens to leave the country?

[Warpy]

1. Most countries will expect a passport

This will probably be what we need to show for the "driver's license" countries like Mexico and Canada.

[Hosnon]

2. I think it would just be to get back into the U.S.

Edit: Response should have been to Warpy's comment.

[ovidsen]

3. What kind of card will other nations accept?

I notice this is from the Tronoto Star, and it doesn't say if the US card is meant for moving between the US and Canada (or Mexico) or the US and nations in Europe, Asia, etc.

Too little information to satisfy my curiosity, durnit.

[Lautremont]

5. Speaking for Canada, we accept Mastercard AND Visa.

No Diner's Club, please. Amex, well, we can talk.

[Auggie]

9. L.O.L.

[w4rma]

4. A national ID card that can be read from a distance with an RFI reader. nt

[AX10]

6. Achtung! National Identification cards are coming!

[Hardrada]

7. Ausweis, bitte!!

[yellowcanine]

8. The fundy fanatics will not be happy about this. Mark of the beast and

all that. Slippery slope to embedded RFID chips implanted in the forehead, no one can buy or sell without it, etc.

[madrchsod]

10. you mean like this?

[uppityperson]

11. better than Operation Mandatory Patriotic Tattoo (info here)

ABOUT OPERATION MANDATORY PATRIOTIC TATTOO: As part of the Office of Homeland Security's broad, discretionary power to enact any and all initiatives which may or may not prove effective in America's ongoing fight against terrorism, Governor Tom Ridge has unilaterally passed into law legislation requiring American citizens to obtain an exciting new breed of tattoo. Modeled on the ubiquitous Universal Product Code (UPC), the Subcutaneous Patriotic Intelligence Tattoo System (SPITS) acts as both a unique identifier and a satellite-trackable global positioning device, enabling the wearer to rest easy in the knowledge that s/he is quantifiable, qualifiable and locatable by the federal government at all times.
Every American will have their choice of any of the three exciting SPITS executions pictured at left, applied under sterile conditions by Federally appointed tattoo technicians - beginning in early February, 2003.

All citizens will be afforded ample opportunity to affirm their patriotism by proudly submitting to this brief and only mildly excrutiating procedure. Any and all able-bodied persons who miss the mandatory tatooing deadline of July 4, 2003 will be subject to fines up to $75,000 and/or terms of medium security imprisonment no shorter than 2 calendar years. The Office of Homeland Security strongly urges any individuals who oppose this right-minded defense program to overcome said opposition, thereby assuring uneventful compliance and significantly reduced post-procedural trauma.



http://www.whitehouse.org/homeland/tattoo.asp

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

12. ...

:rofl:

I love that website.

[yellowcanine]

13. Did you see the FAQs on the sidebar? Very funny, particularly for

recovering fundamentalists such as myself.

Q: My pastor says this is the mark of the beast. Is it?

A: No. Your "pastor" is spreading treasonous lies. Report him to the FBI.

Q: What if my religion forbids me to get a tattoo?

A: You are strongly advised to convert to a different, more patriotic religion.

[Solly Mack]

14. Didn't say it allowed you to leave - said it allowed you to enter

The article is saying you'll need the ID to enter the US - not leave it.

If countries that border the US, Mexico and Canada, allow the use of the ID for entry into their countries by Americans, then all an American will need to travel to either country is the ID. (and not a passport) If Canada and Mexico want a passport, then you'll need a passport to travel there...but you'll still need the ID to re-enter America.

However, this does not address overseas and non-bordering nations. You will still have to have a passport to enter those countries. However, in order to re-enter the US, you will need the ID to do so. It's in addition to your passport for overseas and non-border traveling.


The ID is for re-entry into America. Without it, you will not be able to come back home.

[Sgent]

15. Not according to the article

the article said it would allow transit between US/Canada/Carribean/Mexico w/o a passport -- similar to a DL and birth certificate today.

A passport would still be acceptable anywhere for transit -- this would allow people to travel within the continent w/o the expense of a passport.

BTW -- all new passports have RFID chips already. The last ones w/o them went out Dec 2005 (and will be good for 10 years).

[Solly Mack]

16. I think you might want to reread what I wrote

:)

I did say the ID could be used...if Canada and Mexico allow for it...it's their call, not America's...to travel between the borders without a passport.(ie on the same continent)

"If countries that border the US, Mexico and Canada, allow the use of the ID for entry into their countries by Americans, then all an American will need to travel to either country is the ID. (and not a passport) If Canada and Mexico want a passport, then you'll need a passport to travel there...but you'll still need the ID to re-enter America."


America can issue the ID but that in no way obligates Canada or Mexico to honor it for entry into their countries. Or, "to leave" America...defining entry at a land border crossing into another country as leaving America

And I know passports weren't usually required for such direct travel(crossing a land border)...though there are exceptions to that rule...but that doesn't mean it can't change. Canada could start requiring more in light of America's push to "secure her borders"...and Canada could decide they won't accept the ID. Not saying they will, just saying it's their call...not the US governments.

The point is, the ID is required to re-enter the US. Regardless of what Canada says you need to enter their country, the US is saying you need this ID to come back into America. Which is what I said in my earlier post. The US government was talking using a passport for that...but now they are talking about using the ID instead. To ENTER...

http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:YZoQdyWZPlYJ:talkleft.com/new_archives/010252.html+US+might+require+passports+to+enter+from+Canada&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8

http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Articles.Detail&article_id=68&Month=4&Year=2005

In the article, where it says "The United States has released plans for a wallet-sized pass card that Americans could use instead of a passport to enter the country.

They mean to enter the United States - so if you leave (enter another country) America, you'll need that ID card to re-enter the states. Hence, it doesn't say you need it to leave...though Canada/Mexico could require it...but it does say you need it to enter.

Nautrally, logic demands (and common sense I hope) that if you need the ID to enter that you carried it with you when you left.

[Igel]

18. "Could."

Not "must." Not even a neutral "would." "Could."

Difference in modality, there.

Fixing the problem with semantics:

"They mean to enter the United States - so if you leave (enter another country) America, you could use that ID card to re-enter the states. Hence, it doesn't say you need it to leave...though Canada/Mexico could require it...but it does say you could use it to enter."

[Solly Mack]

19. okey dokey

Got it

Thanks


it could be either or...depending on how the final requirement plays out.

You think the US would want to push the ID card over a passport for direct land border crossings? It's cheaper than a passport, more streamline...you can scan ID's faster.

I use a system now that involves that technology to enter certain areas around Europe. I'm scanned in by my ID and all my info pops up on the screen of the handheld scanners - to include any alerts should they exist.

[Igel]

27. I think they'd prefer we use it.

Passports are riskier to use for day-to-day things. And they wear out.

If I were travelling back and forth across the US border, I'd get a card next time I renewed my passport. New passports have to have chips in them, so when I renew my passport next time I'm a proud member of the chip-carrying set anyway.

[cosmicdot]

28. 'the last ones w/o them went out Dec. 2005'

A friend got a regular one around March, after Dec. 2006 ...


recent article on 'the ID chip you don't want'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/15/AR2006091500923.html


The ID Chip You Don't Want in Your Passport

By Bruce Schneier
Saturday, September 16, 2006; Page A21

If you have a passport, now is the time to renew it -- even if it's not set to expire anytime soon. If you don't have a passport and think you might need one, now is the time to get it. In many countries, including the United States, passports will soon be equipped with RFID chips. And you don't want one of these chips in your passport. ~snip~

[cosmicdot]

29. oops, that should have read ...

"A friend got a regular one around March, after Dec. 2005 ..."

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

17. no country on earth will accept this thing in lieu of a passport,

With the passport demands being imposed by the United States - no country on earth will let americans off with a stupid little smart card.

Principle of Reciprocity,

[hedgehog]

20. What's the point of spending $45 for a stupid card when a real

passport runs about $60? It's still too much for the family with a couple of kids who comes to Niagara Falls and wants to see them from the Canadian side.

[starmaker]

21. Applied for passport today

$97
$67 to dept of state
$30 cash to clerk of court

[eagler]

22. No one should have to pay for this ID

nt

[tom_paine]

23. No card. Imperial Subjects of Amerika are increasingly prisoners

behind the Televised Curtain.

(stronger than the old Iron Curtain, but very velvety soft for the illusion of freedom and debate)

[lanlady]

24. more info on this

The State Department on Tuesday proposed that Americans traveling frequently between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean, use passport cards that can be easily scanned to help quicken the pace of travel and trade.

The cards could contain Radio Frequency Identification chips readable from up to 20 feet away, the proposal, published in the Federal Register, said. Such cards could be distributed and put into use as early as January 2008, the notice said.

more...
http://govexec.com/dailyfed/1006/101806j1.htm

[Anakin Skywalker]

25. Big F*cking Deal! This Still Ain't Worth

as much as the Michael Jordan rookie card!

[Megahurtz]

26. Oh God.

Now what the fuck are they up to with this one?:wtf:
Maybe abolish the traditional Passport so that none of us can leave?
No other Country will accept that rinky-dink card!

Everything is just looking truely scary lately. :scared: