U.S. to Tighten Border Controls by 2008

from JoeUser Forums
Found via DrudgeReport.com, on My Way News, from Associated Press.

headline is linked.


U.S. to Tighten Border Controls by 2008

Apr 5, 12:37 PM (ET)

By BARRY SCHWEID

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans will need passports to re-enter the United States from Canada, Mexico, Panama and Bermuda by 2008, part of a tightening of U.S. border controls in an era of terrorist threat, three administration officials said Tuesday.
Similarly, Canadians will also have to present a passport to enter the United States, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Canadians have been the only foreigners allowed to enter the United States with just a driver's license.
An announcement, expected later Tuesday at the State Department, will specify that a passport or another valid travel document will have to be shown by U.S. citizens, the officials said.
These include a document called Sentri that is used for Mexico travel or a Nexus for Canada travel.
Until now, Americans returning home from Canada have needed only to show a driver's license or other government-issued photo identification card.
Americans returning from Mexico, Panama or Bermuda currently need only a government-issued photo identification card plus proof of U.S. citizenship like an original birth or naturalization certificate, according to the State Department's Web site.
The new rules, to be phased in by Jan. 1, 2008, were called for in intelligence legislation approved last year by Congress.
Safeguarding U.S. borders are a top concern of U.S. intelligence and security officials. The concern increased after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon.
The travel industry has raised concerns that the changes might hamper tourism, one official said.
The announcement follows a three-way summit last month that President Bush held with Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada and President Vicente Fox of Mexico.
Speaking at Baylor University at Waco, Tex., Bush said border controls with Mexico had to be tightened to make sure that terrorists, drug runners, gun runners and smugglers do not enter the United States.



... more at linked article

emphasis added above

Well, well, well. It seems that President Bush has been, at least in some ways, trying to address the border control issues (in conjuction with Congress). He may well be continuing to try to implement his dead-on-arrival (and damn stupid) guest worker program, but he isn't completely ignoring border security (nor are several members of Congress that have led the way to some extent in this area).

I'm glad to see these changes going through, though admitedly, seeing these changes go through will seem in many ways like a loss of innocence for us. I remember being a child travelling with my parents and being so amazed that we could so easily travel to Canada or Mexico and just as easily return. Requiring a passport for such trips will add costs for travellers, and will probably have a negative impact upon tourism, but then again, most tourists probably have enough disposable income to be able to afford the inconvenience (or else they wouldn't be "touring" outside the country).
politics
1,878 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
While I was young at the time, back in the early 70s me and my family spent a year and a half living in Germany. While we were there we visited 8 other countries. At each border crossing, dad had to show our passports, each time we checked in to a hotel or "gasthaus", dad had to show our passports. Doing so never kept us from travelling, or impeded our freedom. It was simple, if you have passports you can stay at the hotels and gasthauses, if not, you aren't supposed to be in the country anyway. I've often wondered why visitors from other countries don't have to show their passports at hotels and motels here.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
Doing so never kept us from travelling, or impeded our freedom


I'm not saying it would impede things in that manner, but it can add cost for people that have to get the documents, or renew them once they obtain them.

Passport costs seemed to have gone up from what I remember having to pay in 1999. I could be wrong, but I think the costs are in the neighborhood of $60 - $80 for a passport, depending on how quickly one is needed. Less if you can take the slowest delivery method, or if you are lucky enough to be able to travel directly to the passport office, instead of going through the mail system.

It is an added burden, but one which I also don't believe is that problematic.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
How is saying youll fix something by 2008 make it look like Bush is on top of the issue. If you tell your boss you'll get something done by 2008, 8 years after you were hired, you'd be sacked and you know it. How's the wife doing?
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
How is saying youll fix something by 2008 make it look like Bush is on top of the issue. If you tell your boss you'll get something done by 2008, 8 years after you were hired, you'd be sacked and you know it.


Considering the pitiful state of affairs in the border control area when Bush came into office, and the amount of time it takes to implement some programs (such as this), 8 years is moving at virtual warp speed.

Seriously, I've seen (as an example) fits and starts by the Metro system as they tried to move to cashless transactions, or at least transactions that worked by using a Farepass card, which is recharged at an ATM like machine. Without enough of the cards for all of their customers, and without enough *working* machines to deal with the cards, it was a disaster.

Imagine the same problems in requiring people that have been used to travelling without any additional requirements now suddenly having to get a passport and have it ready for travel, even though they never had to before.

At a minimum, it would take 2 - 3 years to implement, which is pretty much what is happening now. Which is all happening about 6 months to a year after the recommendations came back from the panel that was tasked to determine the best solutions for the problem. Could most of us have looked at the situation before hand and made the same recommendations? Sure, but again, it adds costs (something most people are loath to impose on their "customers"), and potential delays, and that frightens people. This approach gives more time for selling the solution and convincing people to cooperate.