B747-437B

Maybe I am seeing this from a different perspective because of my long term dealings with SA immigration and complete lack of respect for their competence.

No matter how onerous the legislation may be, it still is better off than the status quo of immigration officers inventing local policies and regulations that often wind up causing bigger problems at the ports of entry.

jsnydcsa

I guess they've never flown
US Air
http://www.usairways.com/en-US/trave...iedminors.html
or
Jet Blue
http://help.jetblue.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN...e=obj%28675%29
I could go on but.

Or else, why would the US State Department even bother providing guidance to parents or guardians traveling internationally.

http://www.dhs.gov/how-do-i/travel-overseas
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/un..._to_travel.pdf

While all these sites talk about should or may wish to rather than shall or must, it's clear that some places, such as Canada, will ask for such a letter and it seems having the letter can eliminate hassles (or worse) elsewhere. See, e.g., http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...t-parents.html

An affidavit isn't that hard to whip together. Indeed, the State Department letter above even suggested just notarizing it for better effect. No doubt someone in SA will likely prepare a form affidavit and it'll start floating around soon enough.

As far as what counts or doesn't count as an unabridged birth certificate, what they're looking for is the name of both parents on the document rather than (as in SA) on an abridged birth certificate just the name of the mother.

I agree with B747-437B. They basically want it "simple" (I know that's definitely the wrong word when it comes to SA) and linear. Kid is here with passport, kid named XYZ, I [officer/agent] need to see birth cert with both parents name on it and XYZ's name on it, according to birth certificate XYZ's parents are ABC and DEF, I [officer/agent] need to see either (a) ABC and DEF standing in front of me with the kid (b) affidavits from ABC and/or DEF (whichever, or both, are not standing in front of me) saying it's OK for the kid to travel or, if (b) can't happen, (c) some other document (court/custody order, death certificate, etc.) explaining why there isn't an affidavit. It's paper, it's process, it'll slow things down. Can it be forged/faked by someone determined to abscond with a kid? Of course. But, I can think of and have experienced far greater "hassles" I've endured at many a border crossing than having to produce a few extra scraps of [non-currency] paper.

GUWonder

Those would be incorrect guesses.

Not everything on government websites is accurate, as a lot of what is "advised" is little more than a dumbed-down version for government to engage in its own version of CYA.

A lot of people have passports with names that aren't a perfect match for what is in the birth certificate, and this is more frequently the case for people who are citizens of a country not of their birth.

The governmental clowns expecting all the names to line up between the passports and the birth certificates and this to be a straightforward and easy matter for all legitimate tourists too are relatively ignorant and need to get out more and pay attention more to the diversity that is out there in the world and respect it.

GUWonder

This won't stop them or the airlines from still blundering over the kind of situations that I mentioned above. And it will cost SA some tourism business. Even in the relatively efficient US, trips by Americans get cancelled or don't get booked because a birth certificate is being sought for purposes of procuring a US passport; and sometimes after the first passport is issued the birth certificate goes missing and must be re-ordered from the relevant governmental authority. This retards travel in some ways, even as passports were created to facilitate travel and get around governments otherwise frustrating movement.

johan rebel

You are absolutely right on both counts, but this is of course completely irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that I can make a journey to the Arctic or Antarctic, but I have no wish to do so. Same goes for South African embassies, even those at considerable distance from either pole. Wasting time and money are not my favorite pursuits. The whole question is of course academic, as I intend to remain over 18 years of age indefinitely.

As an aside, the Dutch government officially won't accept my Dutch birth certificate when issuing a new passport, as it is "too old" (I'm not kidding). This means I need to rely on finding a civil servant with common sense to deal with my application.

Tell me about it. My mom had a Swedish passport in her late Dutch husband's name, and a Dutch passport in her Swedish maiden name. Go figure.

Dutch immigrations have become pretty anal about this in recent years. I know of a number of cases where an (ex)spouse or partner had to jump in a car or taxi and race against time in order to present her or himself at immigrations, just because they refused to take the permission letter at face value.

Johan

B747-437B

^

johan rebel

“Our staff capacity is being looked at to deal with the processing and also to gear them not to become a stumbling block in processing travellers speedily,”

Keep looking!


“A person’s name is spelled the same on a passport and birth certificate, regardless of the language.”

Yeah, right!

Source

Johan

johan rebel

"Western Cape Premier Helen Zille lashed out at the Department of Home Affairs during her State of the Province speech, saying she would go as far as to take the national government to court over the new immigration regulations, which requires families travelling with children under 18 to produce a unabridged birth certificate when flying into or out of South Africa. The Premier said the new laws would destroy economic growth, penalise law-abiding citizens and were largely unenforceable against people who enter South Africa illegally."

Source

Johan

johan rebel

"Minister of Tourism, Derek Hanekom, has broken his silence on the likely impact of new immigration regulations."

Source

Johan

Steve_ZA

That's the first sensible statement from an SA government minister in a very long time, hopefully it will lead to sensible changes.

Cheetah_SA

And yet... just received this email from SAA:

So it looks to be going ahead.

beachmouse

That runs me about $400 in either airfare & related (no discounters in my area) or hotel/gas costs to get to DC or Chicago and back. No tourist visa/reciprocity fee for other countries I'd want to visit would cost me that much.

johan rebel

"a meeting between Minister of Home Affairs, Minister Malusi Gigaba and the Minister of Tourism, Minister Derek Hanekom. In a joint statement following the meeting, the ministers issued a statement, affirming that the requirements for ‘in person’ visa applications and unabridged birth certificates when travelling with children under 18 would remain in place."

Source

Johan

Steve_ZA

I withdraw my optimism.

GUWonder

Disappointed to hear that the government is going ahead with this nonsense. It's going to cost South Africa some tourist revenue, especially when it comes to families who have very limited vacation time and live nowhere very close to a South African embassy/consulate and happen to be part of the modern world of living in one jurisdiction and being born in another and perhaps a citizen of a third jurisdiction.

As someone from a country where the typical paid vacation period for the employed is 2-3 weeks and where geographic distances to the nearest South African consulate/embassy can mean a drive of over 5 hours in each direction, this isn't going to fly well. VFR traffic will be more willing to jump the ridiculous government hoops to visit but various other tourists are going to find it too costly in time and money to pull off and ditch the idea of going if they do their research properly and this move sticks.