Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - ...But we never left the US?!

As a last hurrah before I started my new job (one which involves a lot of travel, hence my discovery of FlyerTalk...HI!!!), my husband and I took a last minute trip to St. Croix, USVI, bringing along our 13 month old daughter.

We have flown with her many many times since her birth and have never once been asked for her birth certificate or for any other form of ID for her, or that proves our relationship to her. Until this trip.

We were surprised to discover a CBP checkpoint upon entry into STX for our departing flight...given that there are only 4 flights a day from STX, and they all land in either SJU or MIA - there simply isn't such a thing as an international flight from STX.

Upon reaching the CBP officer, he examined our boarding passes and DLs (no passports, since we never left the US...), and asked us for our daughter's birth certificate. I told him I didn't have it with us. He asked why not. I replied that I wasn't aware that we needed it, as we had never left the US. He asked, in a rather threatening voice "Well how do I know she's yours?". I was shocked, and stammered that we had brought her with us to visit family in St. Croix. At this point, I began to get upset, as his tone seemed to indicate that if we weren't able to somehow prove that she was our daughter, she would be taken from us...:eek::mad:at which point, US Territory or no, I would have caused an international incident. Our daughter sensed my anxiety and began to get upset herself, clinging to my neck and trying to get me to take her away from the checkpoint. The officer quite rudely told us to move along, and that 'next time you'd better have her birth certificate"...at which point we then moved to the next stage of the ridiculousness that is travel through STX, involving our suitcases being removed from the CBP/AG conveyor by persons unknown, and the sheer magnitude of indifference displayed over the matter by every single uniformed person to whom we alerted the problem...but that's another thread entirely.

My question here is this: given that we never left US soil, why was I supposed to have my daughter's birth certificate?
Moreover, her birth certificate does not have a photo, fingerprints, hand prints, foot prints, or any shred of information that links that particular piece of paper to her physical person. So what's the point? Were I a person of nefarious intent to kidnap a toddler who could be my clone and yet isn't my child, I could take any old birth certificate belonging to a child around the same age and use it. :confused:

I understand and sympathize with you situation a birth certificate doesn't prove anything just like you described. But the USVI is not the US and is not US soil. It is a territory with its own laws, government, and customs. They drive on the left side of the road and can't vote in federal elections. I love the USVI but when I go there I don't have the attitude that I am on US soil.
My best advice is any time you board a plane that will be landing outside the continental united states , know what documentation you will need to return. And never expect anyone one from customs to be friendly or helpful especially in the usvi. Some agents are great but others are very unpleasant to deal with.

Interesting... I've flown from SJU to the Mainland before and never encountered anything like this. What is this about?

Yeah, it sucks when they get all worked up when somebody brings a baby through without any identification at all through an area that baby and child trafficking is on the increase.

I'm actually stunned you went without the birth certificate.

Yeah, any old birth certificate, even one with different parents names on it would work just fine. That will show them.

It honestly never occurred to me that we would need it - yes, I know the USVI is a territory, but as I said we were visiting family who live there - we knew we wouldn't need passports, so it seemed logical to me that if we didn't need passports, we wouldn't need her birth certificate. The very first time we flew with her when she was tiny, we did bring it with us - and we did leave the lower 48- we went to HI. And no one asked us for any documentation for her at all. All they did was ask her name, and give us her BP.

And I was just pointing out that, heaven forbid something happened to my own child, and were I the sort of person who would kidnap another child, simply showing a piece of paper with my name and a name of a child who is as yet unable to talk to identify herself, is hardly the perfect security check that the officer was making it out to be.

I don't have kids but this all intrigues me. Are parents supposed to carry birth certificates for children until a certain age? What age? Should parents taking a 6 year old to Hawaii carry the kid's birth certificate?

Yeah, it sucks when they get all worked up when somebody brings a baby through without any identification at all through an area that baby and child trafficking is on the increase.

I'm actually stunned you went without the birth certificate.

Yeah, any old birth certificate, even one with different parents names on it would work just fine. That will show them.

Yeah a birth certificate proves that the adults hauling the kid around are the kid's parents.

I don't have kids but this all intrigues me. Are parents supposed to carry birth certificates for children until a certain age? What age? Should parents taking a 6 year old to Hawaii carry the kid's birth certificate?

Why stop at Hawaii? Parents must have that ironclad birth certificate when taking the kid to day care.

"Well how do I know she's yours" should get the response, "well if had a birth certificate, how you know she is ours".

Many US territories have their own customs laws/areas and some also have seperate immigration rules. I've always needed a passport for American Samoa and they process CBP in HNL on the way back. My trips to Guam have customs checks, and they have their own Visa Waiver program. CNMI are different from that even (or were a couple years ago).Maybe there might be some wierd ID/Birth cert loophole but everyone on my flights has passports.
IIRC the VI has their own customs rules, can someone confirm?
Also IIRC Most territories are unincorporated and thus not part of the 50 states. D.C is incorporated.

The USVI is absolutely part of the United States, and they are US citizens. Now, it's not as straightforward as Puerto Rico, but generally, a drivers license is all you need. It's similar to traveling to Mexico or Canada prior to Fortress Amerika Days, when a drivers license got you through 95% of the time with no hassle and for the 5% of the times you got guff from Immigration, a voter ID card or something along the lines stops them cold.

Mike, as for asking for a birth certificate for the baby, do you think that all domestic travelers should be forced to carry them when traveling with kids? Kids are kidnapped all the time and just about anywhere, right? What "baby trafficking" is coming out of St. Croix anyways?

The USVI is absolutely part of the United States, and they are US citizens. Now, it's not as straightforward as Puerto Rico, but generally, a drivers license is all you need. It's similar to traveling to Mexico or Canada prior to Fortress Amerika Days, when a drivers license got you through 95% of the time with no hassle and for the 5% of the times you got guff from Immigration, a voter ID card or something along the lines stops them cold.

Mike, as for asking for a birth certificate for the baby, do you think that all domestic travelers should be forced to carry them when traveling with kids? Kids are kidnapped all the time and just about anywhere, right? What "baby trafficking" is coming out of St. Croix anyways?

I never said they are not US citizens, but they are unincorporated parts of the United States. American Samoa's are normally US Nationals the rest of the territories and DC;s folks are citizens. Has nothing to do with their own customs and immigration laws.

They are American but seem not sometimes ;-) their own olympic teams notwithstanding... Each of the 5 big territories (not counting DC which is incorporated via the Constitution but obviously not a state, and with no representation) has their own unique rules, some on just customs, some on immigration and some on both. As I mentioned I am sure there is some birth cert rule, but I've passed CBP arriving from Pago pago in HNL and into AS they ask for passports. Ditto on a flight into Saipan from Guam YMMV.

Some info on the insulare possesions duty exemptions also:
When traveling to one of the U.S. insular possessions, such as the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Guam, you are required to clear Customs and Border Protection and are entitled to a $1,600 duty-free exemption, as long as you are there for 48 hours or more. After your $1,600 duty-free exemption you will be required to pay a flat rate of 1.5% on the next $1,000 worth of goods you purchased while you were there. The remaining balance of your goods after $2,200 will be assessed duty based on the commodity and country of origin.

As for the baby ID, I agree a birth certificate is easy to forge. Since my kids have had passports since 4 months of age I've always used those, and most of our travel was trans-Atlantic anyway. Not sure what I'd have done without the passports if it were domestic travel. if I have another I'll test the system and report back :D

Look, it's very simple - for a US citizen traveling to and from one of the 50 states, DC or Puerto Rico to the USVI, you do not need a passport. We're not discussing Guam or Samoa or Saipan or anything in the Pacific. So, the CBP was out of order in asking for a birth certificate for a baby on a flight from St. Croix to wherever the parents were flying to.

Yeah a birth certificate proves that the adults hauling the kid around are the kid's parents.



Why stop at Hawaii? Parents must have that ironclad birth certificate when taking the kid to day care.

"Well how do I know she's yours" should get the response, "well if had a birth certificate, how you know she is ours".

Just wanted to point out that Hawaii is a state, just like for example, Oregon, Illinois, West Virginia, or even Alaska. It is just extremely difficult to "drive" there.

Just wanted to point out that Hawaii is a state, just like for example, Oregon, Illinois, West Virginia, or even Alaska. It is just extremely difficult to "drive" there.

As I am sure the person you have quoted is fully aware of.

Look, it's very simple - for a US citizen traveling to and from one of the 50 states, DC or Puerto Rico to the USVI, you do not need a passport. We're not discussing Guam or Samoa or Saipan or anything in the Pacific. So, the CBP was out of order in asking for a birth certificate for a baby on a flight from St. Croix to wherever the parents were flying to.

No you look, it is very simple. I am discussing all areas. You might not be.

But The fact remains the USVI has seperate customs laws, and because CBP is now one agency they were not out of order in asking. The point is the question is absurd because it proves nothing about kidnapping.

The birth certificate would be pretty good evidence. He saw the Op's drivers license and if the OP was carrying a birth certificate of a baby girl about 13 months old with the OP listed as the mother, that would tend to further confirm tha the baby in her hands was hers.

I'm not saying that he should have asked for such documentation coming and going from the USVI, but birth certificates are pretty good evidence of parenthood.

The birth certificate would be pretty good evidence. He saw the Op's drivers license and if the OP was carrying a birth certificate of a baby girl about 13 months old with the OP listed as the mother, that would tend to further confirm tha the baby in her hands was hers.

I'm not saying that he should have asked for such documentation coming and going from the USVI, but birth certificates are pretty good evidence of parenthood.

true, and many airlines do technically require them for lap children.
Fact remains CBP can ask, in this case it did not seem to matter.
I owned a home in the USVI for three and half years and in that time I saw CBP asking all the normal inane questions they ask people here, there. Right or wrong, like it or not, that is what they do.

The birth certificate would be pretty good evidence. He saw the Op's drivers license and if the OP was carrying a birth certificate of a baby girl about 13 months old with the OP listed as the mother, that would tend to further confirm tha the baby in her hands was hers.

I disagree. The birth certificate would show that the OP had a child the same age and sex as the one she had with her. Nothing more.

About 10 years ago me an my son was going to Sweden (our birth country). Son was 13 tears old. We are legal residents .

I got an attitude from immigration coming back into the counrty.
Reason was we had different last names.

They wanted to call his father in Sweden. I said go a head .The father doesnt really speak english at all. They had problems with that.
Plus I told them how could I kidnap a teenager. It is not like I could carry him around.

They let us back in to our home. Only time they acted stupid in my eyes.

I disagree. The birth certificate would show that the OP had a child the same age and sex as the one she had with her. Nothing more.

.... and finding such people is indeed a rather common method for human trafficking very young minor children into the US, primarily for family reunification purposes when a parent/guardian is an undocumented alien in the US.

Look, it's very simple - for a US citizen traveling to and from one of the 50 states, DC or Puerto Rico to the USVI, you do not need a passport. We're not discussing Guam or Samoa or Saipan or anything in the Pacific. So, the CBP was out of order in asking for a birth certificate for a baby on a flight from St. Croix to wherever the parents were flying to.
That a passport is not required does not mean they will not ask for ID.

The US State Department "suggests" you should carry ID and birth certtificate when traveling to PR & USVI.

I take this to mean that w/o these you will get in and back to the 50 states, but it might cause issues to not have them.

The birth certificate would be pretty good evidence. He saw the Op's drivers license and if the OP was carrying a birth certificate of a baby girl about 13 months old with the OP listed as the mother, that would tend to further confirm tha the baby in her hands was hers.

I'm not saying that he should have asked for such documentation coming and going from the USVI, but birth certificates are pretty good evidence of parenthood.

but what if the dad name was diffrent, then they would need a letter from the bio dad AS WELL ALONG WITH AN ID. when we travel with my niece i always get a letter from her parents even though she is 16 & has a DL.

The birth certificate would be pretty good evidence. He saw the Op's drivers license and if the OP was carrying a birth certificate of a baby girl about 13 months old with the OP listed as the mother, that would tend to further confirm tha the baby in her hands was hers.

I'm not saying that he should have asked for such documentation coming and going from the USVI, but birth certificates are pretty good evidence of parenthood.

Yes, especially if the child is adopted :rolleyes:

Just wanted to point out that Hawaii is a state, just like for example, Oregon, Illinois, West Virginia, or even Alaska. It is just extremely difficult to "drive" there.

Yes and the day care center in my town is also in a state.

I actually know this guy who has a fake Hawaii birth certificate...

I don't have kids but this all intrigues me. Are parents supposed to carry birth certificates for children until a certain age? What age? Should parents taking a 6 year old to Hawaii carry the kid's birth certificate?

--Jon

Yes and the day care center in my town is also in a state.

Most places are states (e.g. Russia, RoK, NY: a state that is in the state that is the United States of America etc.) :D

The US Department of State is not something that regularly deals with relations between US "states". AFAIK US territories are in a state: the US.

Sorry... carry on.

That a passport is not required does not mean they will not ask for ID.

The US State Department "suggests" you should carry ID and birth certtificate when traveling to PR & USVI.

I take this to mean that w/o these you will get in and back to the 50 states, but it might cause issues to not have them.

Rather ironic suggestion when the US considers those territories part of the US and when the US has made a stink of PR-issued ID and birth certificates. :eek:

There is no legal requirement to make the government's life easier in ways not required by law; so for travel between the mainland and SJU, not sure why the typical US citizens should go through carrying a certified copy of a birth certificate and risk having to pay replacement costs or identity theft.

Mike, as for asking for a birth certificate for the baby, do you think that all domestic travelers should be forced to carry them when traveling with kids? Kids are kidnapped all the time and just about anywhere, right? What "baby trafficking" is coming out of St. Croix anyways?

This thread is about taking a baby to the USVI, something I would never even consider doing without some type of ID for the baby.

It's got nothing at all do to with other domestic travel.

But is it really that hard to carry a birth certificate around if you are carrying a baby around? Many people, like myself, believe you are better to have it and never need it than you are to be asked for it and not have it. I would never consider boarding a airplane with a child traveling anywhere without it. Even if I never need it.

And yeah, I must have been mistaken believing there's any child trafficking (which is way different than kidnapping) in the Caribbean at all. So must be the media, the customs people, the report to congress a few years ago, and all the human rights organizations. They are all probably just making it all up.

IMHO It is very irresponsible for parents to travel anywhere without the birth certificate (the only legal ID) of their child.

It is accepted proof of identity of the child and the parental/guardian relationship.

One example: if anything happens to the child and medical attention is needed, without a birth certificate to ascertain your legal connection and your authority to act on their behalf your child will be subjected to whatever the doctor/local authorities' treatment without your input.

About 10 years ago me an my son was going to Sweden (our birth country). Son was 13 tears old. We are legal residents .

I got an attitude from immigration coming back into the counrty.
Reason was we had different last names.

They wanted to call his father in Sweden. I said go a head .The father doesnt really speak english at all. They had problems with that.
Plus I told them how could I kidnap a teenager. It is not like I could carry him around.

They let us back in to our home. Only time they acted stupid in my eyes.

Elizabeth Smart
Jaycee Dugard and her 2 daughters
Steven Stayner

To name a few more widely known cases; there have been many others of abducted children and teens held through brainwashing and threats against them and their families or others.

I'm not saying the CBP questions they way they are done are useful or justified, or will catch every case, but it's not as simple as above.

I hear what you are saying.

In my case was that me and son both speak swedish/english. Have swedish passports.

A minor child in Sweden cant get an passport unless both parents sign the paper work for a passport.

Plus you can tell that he is my son.He is very much looking like me.:D

I understand and sympathize with you situation a birth certificate doesn't prove anything just like you described. But the USVI is not the US and is not US soil. It is a territory with its own laws, government, and customs. They drive on the left side of the road and can't vote in federal elections. I love the USVI but when I go there I don't have the attitude that I am on US soil.

Very wrong. All US territories are "US soil". A territory has its own laws and government just like any state, or cities, but just about every federal law is enforced in the territories (unless specifically excluded). They vote in federal elections, although they are not numerically represented in Congress. Since 2009, every US civilian territory has a congressperson (who can write laws but cannot officially vote). You can even vote for president on Guam's ballot, although that vote is multiplied by ZERO electors as "allowed" by the US constitution. The USVI belongs to the United States but is not part of the United States. Therefore it's incorrect that the OP claims to have "never left the US".

Among all territories, only Puerto Rico is within the regular US customs jurisdiction. All other territories have their own customs. Guam, CNMI are separate US immigration jurisdictions. American Samoa's immigration isn't even run by the US government.

I hear what you are saying.

In my case was that me and son both speak swedish/english. Have swedish passports.

A minor child in Sweden cant get an passport unless both parents sign the paper work for a passport.

Plus you can tell that he is my son.He is very much looking like me.:D

A minor child in Sweden may be able to get a passport even when both parents don't sign the paperwork for a Swedish passport: amongst applicable circumstances (for some but not all) vary from a child only having one custodial parent, to other custodial parent locked up overseas, or to a Swedish custodial parent taking advantage of custodial non-Swedish parent and applying by having someone else attesting to the signature of the non-Swedish custodial parent because the national police (who issue passports) refuse to accept foreign passports as ID for custodial non-Swedish parents when it comes to such applications.

Some of the most systemstically ridiculous things I have seen when it comes to passport handling in dozens of countries is in Sweden, including because a huge proportion of Swedish passports have incorrect place of birth listings since they use a reactionary parish-type registration system that has parental address as place of birth even as most people are no longer born at home in Sweden.

That all said I agree with you that the CBP often makes a stink when parent and child's last names are different from one another. What has made matters worse is that the governmental clowns in the US and elsewhere have forgotten or are ignorant that majority Western European naming conventions are not universal. For example, often first names are family names in some parts of the world or a middle name may be a given name while the other names don't follow the most common US type naming traditions in recent generations.

.... And when it comes to parent/guardian and children who don't appear to be of entirely the same ethnic background(s), racist and sexist perceptions creep into the way such persons are challenged by government power-trip types who are petty little Napoleons.

A minor child in Sweden may be able to get a passport even when both parents don't sign the paperwork for a Swedish passport: amongst applicable circumstances (for some but not all) vary from a child only having one custodial parent, to other custodial parent locked up overseas, or to a Swedish custodial parent taking advantage of custodial non-Swedish parent and applying by having someone else attesting to the signature of the non-Swedish custodial parent because the national police (who issue passports) refuse to accept foreign passports as ID for custodial non-Swedish parents when it comes to such applications.

Some of the most systemstically ridiculous things I have seen when it comes to passport handling in dozens of countries is in Sweden, including because a huge proportion of Swedish passports have incorrect place of birth listings since they use a reactionary parish-type registration system that has parental address as place of birth even as most people are no longer born at home in Sweden.

That all said I agree with you that the CBP often makes a stink when parent and child's last names are different from one another. What has made matters worse is that the governmental clowns in the US and elsewhere have forgotten or are ignorant that majority Western European naming conventions are not universal. For example, often first names are family names in some parts of the world or a middle name may be a given name while the other names don't follow the most common US type naming traditions in recent generations.

.... And when it comes to parent/guardian and children who don't appear to be of entirely the same ethnic background(s), racist and sexist perceptions creep into the way such persons are challenged by government power-trip types who are petty little Napoleons.


I hear you . When I did that years ago. They needed both parents signature with picture . Otherwise NO.And they were very strict about that. Plus 2 witnesess to the signature.
My signature was verified by a swedish high rank police.

Me and my son have blonde hair and blue eyes. Plus he was much taller than mE.
We also had joint custody .That eeven if the son lived with me.. We never ever had problems with that. Other people did!

To the name thing . My third name is the name I have gone by my whole life since birth. The 2 first ones are my middle names.

No you look, it is very simple. I am discussing all areas. You might not be.

But The fact remains the USVI has seperate customs laws, and because CBP is now one agency they were not out of order in asking. The point is the question is absurd because it proves nothing about kidnapping.

Different customs, but not immigration laws. That's the big difference. This agent was out of line.

I actually know this guy who has a fake Hawaii birth certificate...



--Jon

Is that guy called Barack?

Different customs, but not immigration laws. That's the big difference. This agent was out of line.

It is under their agency's purview, and since they are now one agency post 11 Sept 01 we can presume they feel it is ok to ask. While none of us might agree with that policy, and unlike the TSA making up many rules as they go along, this officer actually has that as one of his general duties. They actually pull immigration duty all the time in the USVI. I have seen them give American, LPRs, and foreign visitors the 3rd degree just as they would at a formal border crossing. I sold my place there in 2007 and my last visit was early 08 but it was quite common during all my trips during those times. I'd presume nothing has changed since.

While none of us might agree with that policy, and unlike the TSA making up many rules as they go along, this officer actually has that as one of his general duties. They actually pull immigration duty all the time in the USVI. I have seen them give American, LPRs, and foreign visitors the 3rd degree just as they would at a formal border crossing.

What documents, if any, is a US citizen or the parents of a minor US Citizen required to carry to enter the USVI and return to the United States?

My guess is that a birth certificate is not remotely required. Otherwise, the airline would take the responsibility of verifying possession so they don't have to provide free freight home for a "deported" passenger, just like they do with passports and visas on ex-US international flights.

I can (barely) tolerate immigration/customs going on fishing expeditions with questions like this based on twisted law-enforcement logic, but the OP stated that they were told "'next time you'd better have her birth certificate." That is a command from a government official acting under color of authority that I suspect is utterly false. If so, it should be grounds for termination.

This routine seems very similar to the internal Constitution-free highway checkpoints border patrol likes to set up "near" the land borders. They can ask me about my citizenship or really any other questions, but I am under no obligation to provide them with or carry my US passport, and any insinuation that I should be carrying a passport would presumably be a problem.

What documents, if any, is a US citizen or the parents of a minor US Citizen required to carry to enter the USVI and return to the United States?

There is a law requiring US citizens to have passports to travel internationally outside the Western Hemisphere. If you don't have one, you'll still be let in eventually, but you'll be penalized for breaking that law.

A passport is not "required" to travel to border regions and non-incorporated territories, but IDs are "recommended" because of the "legality" of "checkpoints" (border patrol, territorial airports). They are still required to let you pass--eventually. This may not have been well enough advertized (or explained in TIMATIC).

Interesting... I've flown from SJU to the Mainland before and never encountered anything like this. What is this about?

I know the checkpoints you're talking about and I was under the impression that they were USDA/ agricultural inspections (which are usually conducted by CBP agents at any port of entry) and are not immigration related.

Checking birth certificates or passports leaving Guam and the CMNI would make sense as the Pacific territories have their own visas and visa-waiver program that are not valid (in their own right) for the Mainland, and CBP has a presence in Agana and Saipan to ensure departing travelers are either US Citizens or have the correct visa or ESTA to travel to the 50 States. The Virgin Islands on the other hands have the same immigration rules as the rest of the country...

IMHO It is very irresponsible for parents to travel anywhere without the birth certificate (the only legal ID) of their child.

It is accepted proof of identity of the child and the parental/guardian relationship.

One example: if anything happens to the child and medical attention is needed, without a birth certificate to ascertain your legal connection and your authority to act on their behalf your child will be subjected to whatever the doctor/local authorities' treatment without your input.

That statement is a load of c**p! It is so factually wrong that I don't even know where to begin...

The Virgin Islands on the other hands have the same immigration rules as the rest of the country...

True but they have a different customs union and CBP enforces both (not true pre 11 Sept 01)

There is a law requiring US citizens to have passports to travel internationally outside the Western Hemisphere. If you don't have one, you'll still be let in eventually, but you'll be penalized for breaking that law.

The above is more myth than reality.

Nothing politically related (as this thread seems to have been hijacked to), but if you plan to travel with your child as a lap child you may be asked for a birth certificate within the U.S. to verify their age. Most airline websites will indicate that they require I.D. to verify their age, especially when they get close to the 2 year old cut off for lap child qualification.

Nothing politically related (as this thread seems to have been hijacked to), but if you plan to travel with your child as a lap child you may be asked for a birth certificate within the U.S. to verify their age. Most airline websites will indicate that they require I.D. to verify their age, especially when they get close to the 2 year old cut off for lap child qualification.

I have had hundreds of flights domestically where U2 lap child infant birth certificates never entered into the picture even as most of the trips were for large 18-24 month olds. That just speaks to the (in)frequency of the demand for that.

There is a law requiring US citizens to have passports to travel internationally outside the Western Hemisphere. If you don't have one, you'll still be let in eventually, but you'll be penalized for breaking that law.Not true. I have entered the U.S. without a passport (from France, after mine was stolen -- and after 9/11/01). If you really believe this, then show us the cite. I have been told many, many times that a U.S. citizen can enter the U.S. -- his or her own country, after all! -- with or without a passport, or even stark naked, without any identification at all. End of story.

Bruce

Not true. I have entered the U.S. without a passport (from France, after mine was stolen -- and after 9/11/01). If you really believe this, then show us the cite. I have been told many, many times that a U.S. citizen can enter the U.S. -- his or her own country, after all! -- with or without a passport, or even stark naked, without any identification at all. End of story.

Bruce

Correct. You don't need to fill out forms, you don't need to do anything other than prove you're a US citizen, which can be done a large number of ways.

Is it best to have a passport? Of course. But it is not required, and you certainly won't be fined or charged with a crime if you cross back to the US without one.

Not true. I have entered the U.S. without a passport (from France, after mine was stolen -- and after 9/11/01). If you really believe this, then show us the cite. I have been told many, many times that a U.S. citizen can enter the U.S. -- his or her own country, after all! -- with or without a passport, or even stark naked, without any identification at all. End of story.

8USC1185b: Except as otherwise provided by the President and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may authorize and prescribe, it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States unless he bears a valid United States passport.

You're eventually admitted--end of story. Countless posts on this forum are about the middle part of the story, usually referred to as "secondary".

Not true. I have entered the U.S. without a passport (from France, after mine was stolen -- and after 9/11/01). If you really believe this, then show us the cite. I have been told many, many times that a U.S. citizen can enter the U.S. -- his or her own country, after all! -- with or without a passport, or even stark naked, without any identification at all. End of story.

Bruce

Thanks Bruce, just what I needed, an image of you stark naked standing at the customs booth. ;)

Mike

8USC1185b: Except as otherwise provided by the President and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may authorize and prescribe, it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States unless he bears a valid United States passport.

You're eventually admitted--end of story. Countless posts on this forum are about the middle part of the story, usually referred to as "secondary".

That is riddled with so many holes as a legal matter as to be generally unenforceable. Don't trust that, then get State's OLA (OGC-equivalent) involved if you can. If you deal with competent personnel, they ought to know why your earlier comment above is more myth than reality and why your above post doesn't prove a thing. It gets back to the above section being so riddled with holes because of other items applicable under the entire body law relevant to the situation. The President can't plug all the holes and actually enforce all of that even if he were to wish to do so in his wildest dreams. Welcome to life under a complex legal system, where not everything in USC is as it may appear to many at first glance and/or to the improperly informed. ;)

I have had hundreds of flights domestically where U2 lap child infant birth certificates never entered into the picture even as most of the trips were for large 18-24 month olds. That just speaks to the (in)frequency of the demand for that.

And I've seen parents have to buy a last minute ticket for lap children that had no means of proving their age, on more than one airline. In some of the cases, the parents actually admitted their kids were over 2. :rolleyes: If it's an infant there's really no question, but I've seen some HUGE 23 month old toddlers.
Also seen parents and child have to take a later flight because there wasn't a seat available on a full flight for their child.
As I said before, it's just a helpful suggestion to be prepared.

And I've seen parents have to buy a last minute ticket for lap children that had no means of proving their age, on more than one airline. In some of the cases, the parents actually admitted their kids were over 2. :rolleyes: If it's an infant there's really no question, but I've seen some HUGE 23 month old toddlers.
Also seen parents and child have to take a later flight because there wasn't a seat available on a full flight for their child.
As I said before, it's just a helpful suggestion to be prepared.

That is exceptional. It is not the norm.

Even for international flights in some markets where no passport is generally required, lap child infants are not even to be required to have a passport let alone a birth certificate. Of course there are exceptionally annoying paranoid busybodies working for the airlines or government in many places but that is not a reason to play surrender monkey to a petty little Napoleon wannabe and meet whatever stupid request such a person may make. It's not the norm but having infant photo ID could also be helpful .... or it could complicate matters when suffering an annoying paranoid busybody may be part of the picture.

If the airlines want to be sensible about the matter, they can. Also, they could make the infant lap child allowance contingent upon the child making a weight cut-off.

Wow. I had no intention of getting into a contest with you or provoke you to start hurling insults at "busybody" employees just trying to do their job by enforcing the FAR's. I was just trying to offer some helpful advice to make parents travel easier.
I'll refrain from commenting anymore in this thread and let everyone resume the mud throwing at each other.

Given the above post's mischaracterizations are multiple, I won't even get into addressing them all. There is no FAR that generally requires domestic-flying children under the age of 2 to have a birth certificate, certified or otherwise, in order to fly on a common carrier within the US, even if the flight were to route over foreign airspace and/or waters.

I was referring to the FAR that requires any passenger over the age of 2 to occupy a seat. Sorry you misunderstood me.

Given the above post's mischaracterizations are multiple, I won't even get into addressing them all. There is no FAR that generally requires domestic-flying children under the age of 2 to have a birth certificate, certified or otherwise, in order to fly on a common carrier within the US, even if the flight were to route over foreign airspace and/or waters.

I believe that the FARs the OP (flight attendant?) referenced have to do with requirements for passengers to be seated and restrained (wearing seatbelts) during take-offs and landings. This has nothing to do with any required documentation. "Lap children" must be under a certain age in order to be restrained solely in the lap of another person. I would bet that in the event of an accident, the airline would be in trouble if that large lap child was in fact over the legal age, not the parent who lied in order to avoid having to pay for a separate ticket. The FARs may not require documentation for the lap child, but the airline (who would be liable) has every right to ask for some form of proof of the child's age. IANAL, YMMV.

I believe that the FARs the OP (flight attendant?) referenced have to do with requirements for passengers to be seated and restrained (wearing seatbelts) during take-offs and landings. This has nothing to do with any required documentation. "Lap children" must be under a certain age in order to be restrained solely in the lap of another person. I would bet that in the event of an accident, the airline would be in trouble if that large lap child was in fact over the legal age, not the parent who lied in order to avoid having to pay for a separate ticket. The FARs may not require documentation for the lap child, but the airline (who would be liable) has every right to ask for some form of proof of the child's age. IANAL, YMMV.

I wouldn't bet on all of that like the above post suggests you would, but I am familiar with the FAR to which you are referring.

Which FAR is there that mandates that the airline confirm via reference to ink-on-paper documents that the age of a domestic-flying lap child American infant is what a parent/guardian claims? [Sounds like a "may" above is not even a "may".] Even the annoying, paranoid government busybodies -- claiming "security" to get their way -- have carved out exceptions for young minors when it comes to ID checks.

I wouldn't bet on all of that like the above post suggests you would, but I am familiar with the FAR to which you are referring.

Which FAR is there that mandates that the airline confirm via reference to ink-on-paper documents that the age of a domestic-flying lap child American infant is what a parent/guardian claims? [Sounds like a "may" above is not even a "may".] Even the annoying, paranoid government busybodies -- claiming "security" to get their way -- have carved out exceptions for young minors when it comes to ID checks.

There is no FAR (as "far" as I am aware) requiring that an airline confirm the age of a lap child allowed onto a departing flight, but there may be a liability penalty to the airline that hasn't done so in the event of any accident where the lap child was injured or caused injury to another by flying unrestrained through the passenger compartment. The only way to steer clear of all gray areas in this area would be to require that a seat (with age appropriate restraint systems) be available for ALL passengers, period. In the current system of allowing exemptions for lap children under the age of two, I am pretty sure that the airline has the right to refuse carriage to any child that appears to be over the age of two. This has nothing to do with "security" of course! In an age of litigation, it's just a matter of CYA for the airlines. (not TSA or Border control)

and for the sake of getting back on topic... here is the original query.

As a last hurrah before I started my new job (one which involves a lot of travel, hence my discovery of FlyerTalk...HI!!!), my husband and I took a last minute trip to St. Croix, USVI, bringing along our 13 month old daughter.

We have flown with her many many times since her birth and have never once been asked for her birth certificate or for any other form of ID for her, or that proves our relationship to her. Until this trip.

We were surprised to discover a CBP checkpoint upon entry into STX for our departing flight...given that there are only 4 flights a day from STX, and they all land in either SJU or MIA - there simply isn't such a thing as an international flight from STX.

Upon reaching the CBP officer, he examined our boarding passes and DLs (no passports, since we never left the US...), and asked us for our daughter's birth certificate. I told him I didn't have it with us. He asked why not. I replied that I wasn't aware that we needed it, as we had never left the US. He asked, in a rather threatening voice "Well how do I know she's yours?". I was shocked, and stammered that we had brought her with us to visit family in St. Croix. At this point, I began to get upset, as his tone seemed to indicate that if we weren't able to somehow prove that she was our daughter, she would be taken from us...:eek::mad:at which point, US Territory or no, I would have caused an international incident. Our daughter sensed my anxiety and began to get upset herself, clinging to my neck and trying to get me to take her away from the checkpoint. The officer quite rudely told us to move along, and that 'next time you'd better have her birth certificate"...at which point we then moved to the next stage of the ridiculousness that is travel through STX, involving our suitcases being removed from the CBP/AG conveyor by persons unknown, and the sheer magnitude of indifference displayed over the matter by every single uniformed person to whom we alerted the problem...but that's another thread entirely.

My question here is this: given that we never left US soil, why was I supposed to have my daughter's birth certificate?
Moreover, her birth certificate does not have a photo, fingerprints, hand prints, foot prints, or any shred of information that links that particular piece of paper to her physical person. So what's the point? Were I a person of nefarious intent to kidnap a toddler who could be my clone and yet isn't my child, I could take any old birth certificate belonging to a child around the same age and use it. :confused:

There is no FAR (as "far" as I am aware) requiring that an airline confirm the age of a lap child allowed onto a departing flight, but there may be a liability penalty to the airline that hasn't done so in the event of any accident where the lap child was injured or caused injury to another by flying unrestrained through the passenger compartment. The only way to steer clear of all gray areas in this area would be to require that a seat (with age appropriate restraint systems) be available for ALL passengers, period. In the current system of allowing exemptions for lap children under the age of two, I am pretty sure that the airline has the right to refuse carriage to any child that appears to be over the age of two. This has nothing to do with "security" of course! In an age of litigation, it's just a matter of CYA for the airlines. (not TSA or Border control)

What evidence is there of a liability penalty based on the indicated FAR in the event of a plane accident involving a lap child infant? Theoretical claims have evidence too, or they are just wishful thinking.

I wouldn't be as sure as you are that "the airline has the right to refuse carriage to any child that appears to be over the age of two".

The FAR relevant to lap child infants has everything to do with safety and security, even of the financial and/or job (in)security sort.

To answer the Original Post by Trillias:
Actually you did leave the United States Of America. The USVI are an inhabited insular area of the United States. An insular area is a United States territory that is neither a part of one of the 50 U.S. states nor the District of Columbia, the federal district of the U.S.
This link may help to clarify the difference for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_area

CBP is a combination of Immigration, Customs and Agriculture. Previous to the formation of DHS these were separate agencies.
From Help CBP the following information.

For Immigration purposes:
Will travelers from U.S. territories need to present a passport to enter the United States?

U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR's) who travel directly between parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), without touching at a foreign port or place, are not required to present a valid U.S. Passport or U.S. Green Card. However, it is recommended that travelers bring a government issued photo ID and copy of birth certificate.
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/980/related/1/~/clearing-cbp-when-traveling-to-u.s.-insular-possessions-%28u.s.-virgin-islands%2C

For Customs Purposes:
Do I have to clear Customs when traveling to U.S. insular possessions (U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Guam)? If so, what are my duty exemptions?

When traveling to one of the U.S. insular possessions, such as the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Guam, you are required to clear Customs and Border Protection and are entitled to a $1,600 duty-free exemption, as long as you are there for 48 hours or more. After your $1,600 duty-free exemption you will be required to pay a flat rate of 1.5% on the next $1,000 worth of goods you purchased while you were there. The remaining balance of your goods after $2,200 will be assessed duty based on the commodity and country of origin. For duty amounts on the remaining balance, you can contact the port through which you intend to arrive in the U.S. and request an Import Specialist.
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/422/~/clearing-cbp-when-traveling-to-u.s.-insular-possessions-%28u.s.-virgin-islands,

I wouldn't bet on all of that like the above post suggests you would, but I am familiar with the FAR to which you are referring.

Which FAR is there that mandates that the airline confirm via reference to ink-on-paper documents that the age of a domestic-flying lap child American infant is what a parent/guardian claims? [Sounds like a "may" above is not even a "may".] Even the annoying, paranoid government busybodies -- claiming "security" to get their way -- have carved out exceptions for young minors when it comes to ID checks.

That is a very simple question with a multipart answer. FAR 121.131 would apply and if the airline had a requirement for documentation, it becomes a part of the carrier's operating limitations by virtue of being a part o the FAA required ops manual, under FAR Parts 121 or 135, whichever is applicable.

What evidence is there of a liability penalty based on the indicated FAR in the event of a plane accident involving a lap child infant? Theoretical claims have evidence too, or they are just wishful thinking.

I wouldn't be as sure as you are that "the airline has the right to refuse carriage to any child that appears to be over the age of two".

The FAR relevant to lap child infants has everything to do with safety and security, even of the financial and/or job (in)security sort.

I suspect that like the huge majority of passengers on the airlines, you'
've never really read your ticket, which technically is not a ticket but, rather, a "contract of carriage." That contract incorporates by reference all of the provisions of the particular airline's "tariff", which really isn't a "tariff" but is called that because that"s what the CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board) called it, and the bureaucrats are too lazy to change the name to reflect that fact.
Moreover, every Operating Certificate puts the responsibility for assuring compliance with all FARs on the Operator (airline). The effect of a violation of a regulation on civil liability is a matter of state, and not federal, law, but in almost every state, the voilation of a regulation is per se negligence, giving rise to tort liability.
So, to cut through the sophistry here, there is no FAR which says, specifically, that every baby needs a birth certificate. But there also is no FAR that specifically says "You may not point the nose of your MD-80 down to achieve an alpha which results in mach tuck." But I want to see someone do that and try to escape liability because no reg said you couldn't do it.
And by the way, IAAL, retired now but having done aviation law for 35 years.

I suspect that like the huge majority of passengers on the airlines, you'
've never really read your ticket, which technically is not a ticket but, rather, a "contract of carriage." That contract incorporates by reference all of the provisions of the particular airline's "tariff", which really isn't a "tariff" but is called that because that"s what the CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board) called it, and the bureaucrats are too lazy to change the name to reflect that fact.
Moreover, every Operating Certificate puts the responsibility for assuring compliance with all FARs on the Operator (airline). The effect of a violation of a regulation on civil liability is a matter of state, and not federal, law, but in almost every state, the voilation of a regulation is per se negligence, giving rise to tort liability.
So, to cut through the sophistry here, there is no FAR which says, specifically, that every baby needs a birth certificate. But there also is no FAR that specifically says "You may not point the nose of your MD-80 down to achieve an alpha which results in mach tuck." But I want to see someone do that and try to escape liability because no reg said you couldn't do it.
And by the way, IAAL, retired now but having done aviation law for 35 years.

^^^

Thank you for stating so succinctly something like what I was trying to say! ;-) So anyways... the carrier can rightly ask for documentation re: the lap child, but can TSA or Border patrol demand the same? (if not for reason of FAR regulation violations but for reason of suspected crimes???) I think this was the original question?

Annoying, paranoid busybodies can ask for just about anything they wish, but that doesn't mean it is generally legally required.

I suspect that like the huge majority of passengers on the airlines, you'
've never really read your ticket, which technically is not a ticket but, rather, a "contract of carriage."

Your suspicions are suspect to the extent of being patently false.

I am quite familiar with every element that you included in your above posts, so yet another validation of the same is welcome nonetheless.

So, to cut through the sophistry here, there is no FAR which says, specifically, that every baby needs a birth certificate. But there also is no FAR that specifically says "You may not point the nose of your MD-80 down to achieve an alpha which results in mach tuck." But I want to see someone do that and try to escape liability because no reg said you couldn't do it.
Who'd be making the tort claim in the child case? Are you claiming that a passenger whose child was injured could successfully sue the airline because they didn't force the parent to prove that the child was under 24 months old? That seems more than a bit far-fetched to me.