« Not So Fast, McCain | Main | War on Terror Update: Al-Qaida Afghan Commander Gets Ticket to Paradise »

New Border ID Rules Take Effect, Chaos predicted by liberal media fails to materialize

Motorists passed easily through border checkpoints Thursday as tougher identification standards for U.S. and Canadian citizens went into effect, without backups or confusion.

U.S. and Canadian citizens entering or re-entering the country no longer will be allowed simply to declare their citizenship to immigration officers at border crossings. Instead, those 19 years and older will have to show valid proof of citizenship -- a passport, trusted traveler card or a birth certificate and government-issued ID card such as a driver's license.

Customs officials said delays were minimal across the country and that most motorists had the documentation they needed.

Bonus points to the first liberal law professor or student who can figure out a way to complain about those measures *and* simultaneously to complain the Bush administration is not doing enough to secure the border *and* that the government should spend less public money but also should increase border security.

* * *
Here's a link to the AP's version of events.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/27515.

Comments (10)

Of course it went well. DHS... (Below threshold)
BPG:

Of course it went well. DHS has only been telling people the rules will change for the last 3+ years. See the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (PL 108-458), specifically Section 7209(b)(1), which reads:

"The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall develop and implement a plan as expeditiously as possible to require a passport or other document, or combination of documents, deemed by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be sufficient to denote identity and citizenship, for all travel into the United States by United States citizens and by categories of individuals for whom documentation requirements have previously been waived under section 212(d)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(d)(4)(B)). > This plan shall be implemented not later than January 1, 2008..."

People have had four years to get ready for this.

Or, putting the post title ... (Below threshold)

Or, putting the post title another way: Countries that once bragged about friendship and the world's longest unguarded border succumb to terrorist's goals, restrict travel freedom and punish the innocent.

Or put yet another way, aft... (Below threshold)
BPG:

Or put yet another way, after years of believing "It could never happen to us" even after advances in air travel and communications eliminated the barriers we used to call the Atlantic & Pacific Oceans, we finally have to do what every other country has done for years - require documentation for all people entering our sovereign territory, citizens or not.

If a police officer pulled you over and asked for your license, and you said "I have one, but I can't prove it.", what would happen? You certainly wouldn't be taken at your word. So why, when a CBP Officer stops you and asks you for your passport, and you say "I am a U.S. citizen, but I can't prove it.", why is that totally acceptable?

Thank you dcrussell, I didn... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Thank you dcrussell, I didn't know that. And here all along I've been going on the (apparently mistaken) belief that the terrorists wanted to kill me if I didn't submit to their version of Islam.

What a relief to hear you say they only want to restrict my freedom to travel.

No, no! You used the word succumb as well. You mean the United States of America and Canada DIED? Was that because they couldn't brag about friendship and an unguarded border anymore?

One last question, do you know how to form a comprehensible sentence?

I remember hearing a story ... (Below threshold)
Miss Elliott:

I remember hearing a story on NPR (yes, I occasionally listen if only for a chuckle at the pretentiousness of it) on a small town on the Canadian border and how the residents were in a tither about the new rules preventing them from crossing back and forth into Canada at will. It was SUCH an imposition for them to have to actually carry proof of citizenship, and of course it was ALL GWB's fault. Pathetic.

Well, better late than neve... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Well, better late than never.

The only chaos (and failure... (Below threshold)
Jo:

The only chaos (and failure) comes from policies the liberals themselves implement. Of course they never admit that.

I think 4 years to get a pa... (Below threshold)
Piso Mojado:

I think 4 years to get a passport or round up a copy of a birth certificate is plenty of time. Only the MSM and libs like dcrussel think verifying citizenship at a border is unnecessary.

Here is a question for all ... (Below threshold)
Rance:

Here is a question for all of you who seem so well informed: If I lack the ability to prove who I am under the new guide lines, how do I get proof of who I am?

If I don't have a copy of my birth certificate, how do I get one. Years ago, I sent $3 to the county clerk and got a copy of my brother's birth certificate to back an ID that said I was old enough to go into a bar. Is it still that easy?

The question is, starting out from zero, how does a citizen of this country get sufficient proof of citizenship to be allowed to cross the border? It all seems like a Catch-22 situation -- you need to be able to prove who you are in order to get proof of who you are.

Rance,Check this: ... (Below threshold)
BPG:

Rance,

Check this: http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

It all depends on where you were born and when as far as how you can get enough proof that you are a U.S. citizen. It is almost impossible, in this day and age, for there to be NO way to prove it. That doesn't mean that it'll be necessarily easy to prove, however. Immigration law in the U.S. is structured in such a way that the burden of proof is on the APPLICANT for admission, not on the government.

See 8 CFR 235.1(b): "A person claiming U.S. citizenship must establish that fact to the examining officer's satisfaction and must present a U.S. passport if such passport is required under the provisions of 22 CFR part 53. If such applicant for admission fails to satisfy the examining immigration officer that he or she is a U.S. citizen, he or she shall thereafter be inspected as an alien."

Also see 22 CFR 53.1(a): "It is unlawful for a citizen of the United States, unless excepted under 22 CFR 53.2, to enter or depart, or attempt to enter or depart, the United States, without a valid U.S. passport."




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy