US Citizens may be to be Required to get ''Clearance'' to Travel outside USA

[Kristijntje]

Forget no-fly lists. If Uncle Sam gets its way, beginning on Jan. 14,
2007, we'll all be on no-fly lists, unless the government gives us
permission to leave-or re-enter-the United States.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (HSA) has proposed that 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.

It doesn't matter if you have a U.S. Passport - a "travel document"
that now, absent a court order to the contrary, gives you a virtually
unqualified right to enter or leave the United States, any time you
want. When the DHS system comes into effect next January, if the
agency says "no" to a clearance request, or doesn't answer the
request at all, you won't be permitted to enter-or leave-the United
States...

full article: http://sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3023

[BellisimaJ.]

Thank you, Kristijntje.

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are two countries in recent history
that didn't allow their citizens to travel abroad without permission.
If these regulations go into effect, you can add the United States to
this list.

Congratulations, fucking Bush Administration. arcasm1:    Your place in history is to be the Administration that destroyed democracy in two terms.

Consider what might happen if you're a U.S. passport holder on
assignment in a country like Saudi Arabia. Your visa is about to
expire, so you board your flight back to the United States. But wait!
You can't get on, because you don't have permission from the HSA.
Saudi immigration officials are on hand to escort you to a squalid
detention center, where you and others who are now effectively
"stateless persons" are detained, potentially indefinitely, until
their immigration status is sorted out.

mileyazwipe:

[thentavius]

Seriously?

[BellisimaJ.]

[quote author=thentavius link=topic=5791.msg30934#msg30934 date=1162741733]
Seriously?
[/quote]

It looks like it. I am going to do some research today if I have time. Regardless, I will do the research. I want to know about this.

[cranky_hippie]

I don't know all the details of the proposal but the possible implications are nauseating.

In addition to the mentioned scenarios, what about traveling to Canada or Mexico? Will we be required to get clearance for a quick trip across the border? That should please our neighbors to the north and south. NOT.

Canada is often a vacation destination for folks here in Michigan and states just to the south of us. And our cities and towns benefit as tourists stop off on the way to Canada and spend money. Just what we need is one more slam to our already troubled economy.

Now this is not nearly as big an issue as our possible loss of one more freedom but it makes me question whether this current administration EVER looks at the big picture...or even cares.

[BellisimaJ.]

My son and I go back and forth to Canada frequently---his best friend is there. I am thinking that this will no longer be a reasonably safe thing to do after January 14, 2007. >

[BellisimaJ.]

I don't know all the details of the proposal but the possible implications are nauseating.

Why isn't this getting more media attention? It is possibly the most outrageous thing that has been done to destroy our democracy. I am beginning to think that Bush is not only friggin stupid and illiterate, but evil!!!

[Jen]

This provision affects Part 135 travel - air taxi for hire.  This deals with unscheduled flights, not with airline travel (where passenger manifests are already transmitted in this time window).  So - for someone chartering an airplane to go in and out of the US, there would need to be a transmission of the passenger manifest 60 minutes before the plane takes off.  I found this not on blogs, but by reading the actual docket, and having knowledge of what part 135 means.  This does not involve scheduled flights by airlines.  As it is right now, part 135 requires the submission of the manifest no later than 15 minutes after takeoff for inbound or outbound flights from our country.  This just allows anyone that is already on a "no-fly list" to be identified before takeoff, instead of having to turn around the ship after 15 minutes of flight.  I'm hard-pressed to think of a situation (except where someone hires a plane on one side of the border to travel to the other side of the border) where a 75 minute difference in notification will actually make a difference. 

Edited to add:  I know nothing about travel on the seas - but it looks like those provisions have already been in place, though the time window is just being tightened up a bit.  However, knowing nothing about travel on the seas I have stuck to a topic I know a little something about - the skies.

Edited because 60 + 15 = 75, and somehow I got that wrong when I typed this little response 

[Jen]

By the way Belle, most countries already require for air-taxi-on-demand to submit a passenger manifest before takeoff 

[Ms Molly]

Thanks, Jen. 

I checked snopes.com and couldn't find any hoax warning; the only thing I could Google were lots of unknown and/or suspect sites-blogs, etc. Couldn't find anything on CNN search. Couldn't find anything .gov.

Seemed unusual in an election year that we hadn't heard more.  >

What really gets me is the new $50 per person tax on Alaska cruise passengers that was voter approved and will likely go into effect in 2007. We are already paying $150.