US Immigration Exit Tracking

Old May 26, 2013, 1:30 pm
  #61  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,237
Originally Posted by Firebug4
Did you read the regulations? They spell out how a do not depart order for Immigration exit controls would work including the appeals process and the individuals right to representation. It is not at all like the no-fly list situation. They are really not new either they have been in place since at least 1997 when I started and I believe were in place for sometime even then.

Exit controls have been in the INA since at least 1997. They have never been fully implemented, if I had to guess the reason why I would say funding above all else.

As for your example of being in arrears on child support being used to prohibit someone from leaving the country, I don't believe under the current language of the regulation that would rise to level of national interest. Do other countries do what you are suggesting? I would say yes as Australia comes to mind.

http://guide.csa.gov.au/part_5/5_2_11.php

FB
Actually, as I understand it, the law currently prohibits one from getting a passport if one is >$2500 in arrears on child support.

I'm not going to debate the merits or rationale of that law, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that if exit controls are implemented, an individual who currently has a passport and is known to be in arrears on child support will not be allowed to exit.

I'm not talking about what is currently in place and rarely, if ever, enforced. I am talking about potential mission creep and expansion by a parent organization not known for transparency and not open to appeals or generally concerned about accuracy of data.

This has nothing to do with the men and women in the 'lower' ranks who would have to enforce such practices; it has everything to do with policy makers and people at the top who have allowed abuses and creep to take place within current parallel systems.
chollie is online now  
Old May 26, 2013, 2:27 pm
  #62  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by chollie
Actually, as I understand it, the law currently prohibits one from getting a passport if one is >$2500 in arrears on child support.



I'm not going to debate the merits or rationale of that law, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that if exit controls are implemented, an individual who currently has a passport and is known to be in arrears on child support will not be allowed to exit.

I'm not talking about what is currently in place and rarely, if ever, enforced. I am talking about potential mission creep and expansion by a parent organization not known for transparency and not open to appeals or generally concerned about accuracy of data.

This has nothing to do with the men and women in the 'lower' ranks who would have to enforce such practices; it has everything to do with policy makers and people at the top who have allowed abuses and creep to take place within current parallel systems.
OK. but talk about mission creep and expansion. We went from Immigration exit controls to unpaid child support.

Immigration exit controls have been on the books for literally decades and are no closer to being implemented now then they were when they were added to the INA. Even so, the do not depart sections are clearly delineated with procedures for representation and appeal. I would chose to not waste energy on what hypothetically could happen but hasn't for decades and focus on what is happening right now.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 2:50 pm
  #63  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,237
Originally Posted by Firebug4
OK. but talk about mission creep and expansion. We went from Immigration exit controls to unpaid child support.

Immigration exit controls have been on the books for literally decades and are no closer to being implemented now then they were when they were added to the INA. Even so, the do not depart sections are clearly delineated with procedures for representation and appeal. I would chose to not waste energy on what hypothetically could happen but hasn't for decades and focus on what is happening right now.

FB
OK, I yield, you're 100% right. Laws and protections are in place and they can and will never be changed or misapplied. There's absolutely no precedent for it. If something hasn't happened before, there's no reason to think it ever might happen in the future. (I thought similar thinking may have played a role in our nation being unprepared for 9-11, but that has nothing to do with exit controls that have never been enforced, ergo, there's no reason to believe they ever will be enforced - because they never have been before...)

Limiting a US citizen's right to get a passport to be able to exit the country has absolutely nothing to do with any restrictions that currently exist or might ever exist in the future on someone's right to exit the country.
chollie is online now  
Old May 26, 2013, 5:47 pm
  #64  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by Firebug4
As for your example of being in arrears on child support being used to prohibit someone from leaving the country, I don't believe under the current language of the regulation that would rise to level of national interest.
It does rise to the level of national interest (as evidenced in 1996 and 1997 and since), and passport denial is a traditional form of exit control.

We have a national policy of routinely denying US passports to US citizens who have been reported (by states to HHS and, through it, to State), as owing above a certain stipulated unpaid child support amount of $2,500 or more. There are exceptions, but the exception requests (with regard to US P type) are more frequently denied than used to be the case.

US dual-citizens have an easier time around this sort of exit control than non-dual-citizens, but the circumvention of this form of US exit control by US dual-citizens may involve inconvenience to say the least.

Last edited by GUWonder; May 26, 2013 at 6:04 pm
GUWonder is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 6:51 pm
  #65  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by GUWonder
It does rise to the level of national interest (as evidenced in 1996 and 1997 and since), and passport denial is a traditional form of exit control.

We have a national policy of routinely denying US passports to US citizens who have been reported (by states to HHS and, through it, to State), as owing above a certain stipulated unpaid child support amount of $2,500 or more. There are exceptions, but the exception requests (with regard to US P type) are more frequently denied than used to be the case.

US dual-citizens have an easier time around this sort of exit control than non-dual-citizens, but the circumvention of this form of US exit control by US dual-citizens may involve inconvenience to say the least.
Originally Posted by chollie
OK, I yield, you're 100% right. Laws and protections are in place and they can and will never be changed or misapplied. There's absolutely no precedent for it. If something hasn't happened before, there's no reason to think it ever might happen in the future. (I thought similar thinking may have played a role in our nation being unprepared for 9-11, but that has nothing to do with exit controls that have never been enforced, ergo, there's no reason to believe they ever will be enforced - because they never have been before...)

Limiting a US citizen's right to get a passport to be able to exit the country has absolutely nothing to do with any restrictions that currently exist or might ever exist in the future on someone's right to exit the country.
Why is it that when the facts do not support either of your positions you both bring in hypotheticals that have nothing to do with what the thread topic was to begin with?

The topic was Immigration exit controls for international visitors that are performed by CBP. These have been around for years but either not implemented, poorly implemented, or experimentally implemented. A connection was incorrectly made to no-fly lists that have nothing whatsoever to do with this topic or the process the topic is about.

Immigration exit controls for visitors is a clear process that is clearly delineated in the law and regulations. It is written in the CFR in black and white and when those regulations that are relevant to visitors is posted to correct false implications that is when well what about this and what about that starts. Why are we even talking about US passports and child support when my comments were aimed at the topic in the original post.

The situations both of you are trying to force into this topic have nothing to do with Immigration exit controls for visitors to the United States. The Department of State is not the one that is responsible for that. The State Department's decision to issue a US passport or not has no bearing on Immigration exit controls for visitors to the United States that are performed by a separate agency all together.

It is best to compare apples to apples. It does nothing but confuse the matter when you continue to add variables that have nothing to do with the process being discussed.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 7:01 pm
  #66  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
What position of mine in this thread are you talking about not being supported by facts? Can't say I am a fan of having positions supported by fiction.

A statement was made:

As for your example of being in arrears on child support being used to prohibit someone from leaving the country, I don't believe under the current language of the regulation that would rise to level of national interest.
and, based on fact, I challenged the above-stated belief as a misrepresentation.

By the way, exit control infrastructure that gets instituted for visitors has quite the history internationally of also being used as exit control infrastructure for citizens of the country too, at least from time to time. Mission creep indeed.

The US, also by the way, does have some history with exit control, even for US citizens.
GUWonder is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 7:41 pm
  #67  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: TYO
Programs: Tokyo Monorail Diamond-Encrusted-Platinum
Posts: 9,603
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a Gang of Eight member, sponsored the proposal and called it a necessary change in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings.
Am I missing something? What is it about the Boston Marathon incident that makes this necessary?
jib71 is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 7:54 pm
  #68  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: GEG
Programs: Motel 6 Club Avoir Le Cafard
Posts: 5,027
Originally Posted by Firebug4
The discussion is not really about the no-fly list. It is about immigration exit controls. The relevant section of law concerning do not depart orders are as follows:

Section 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and
22 CFR 46

FB
22 CFR 46? What a hoot.

(h) The term depart from the United States means depart by land, water, or air (1) from the United States for any foreign place, or (2) from one geographical part of the United States for a separate geographical part of the United States


I always figured that if I took the subway to Brooklyn I'd be traveling to a foreign country, but I never knew this was codified in the law.
mbstone is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 8:08 pm
  #69  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by jib71
Am I missing something? What is it about the Boston Marathon incident that makes this necessary?
The US lost track of the the bomber's departure from the US for Russia, with US having to rely upon Russia to correct the record and indicate how long he was in Russia and where in Russia he had gone on the same trip. Some think that if his flight departure details were known, then he may have been intercepted at some point before the bombing. Also, some think that (more) exit controls should be in place to facilitate the revocation of asylum/refugee status if a person granted such status in the US goes to the foreign country of citizenship. Hope that helps indicate why this has come up in connection with those attacks.

By the way, even as Russia had warned the US about that individual, the Russian government didn't really do much of anything to him on his entry to or exit from Russia despite previously having warned the US that the individual was an extremist of some sort.

Russia has entry/exit controls, knew his Russian passport details, has a blacklist system in place, and yet he was more or less left alone on his trip to/from Russia.
GUWonder is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 8:23 pm
  #70  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by GUWonder
What position of mine in this thread are you talking about not being supported by facts? Can't say I am a fan of having positions supported by fiction.

A statement was made:



and, based on fact, I challenged the above-stated belief as a misrepresentation.

By the way, exit control infrastructure that gets instituted for visitors has quite the history internationally of also being used as exit control infrastructure for citizens of the country too, at least from time to time. Mission creep indeed.

The US, also by the way, does have some history with exit control, even for US citizens.
I have attempted to limit my comments to the topic of the original post which was Immigration exit controls for visitors to the United States. I posted the relevant laws and regulations that apply to visitors to the United States. Those laws and regulations that are in black and white tend to be facts.

You and another poster chose to throw in references to child support and US passports. These have nothing to do with Immigration exit controls for visitors to the United States.

As to what you believe to be "facts", what happens internationally in other countries does not demonstrate that it will happen in the United States. Again, laws in different countries can be and are significantly different. This means that many things that occur in other countries will not occur in the US and that works the other way as well.

You tend to challenge a lot of things here. Yet, you never back those challenges up with citations of law or even specific examples. You just say in your favorite style of double speak "I heard once from such and such that this might of happened or is possible to maybe happen" and call that a fact.

What you call a misrepresentation is me telling someone that a US Citizen is not going to be given a do not depart order using Immigration exit controls for visitors to the United States. I can back that up with chapter and verse from the laws and regulations and I will yet again word for word.

The US, also by the way, does have some history with exit control, even for US citizens.
That is your version of a fact. How about a citation from law or an example of Immigration exit controls for foreign visitors being used for a US Citizen being denied departure from the US for unpaid child support. Remember, that it should be Immigration exit controls for foreign visitors since that is the topic not the State Department issuing or not issuing a passport.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/46

§ 46.2

Authority of departure-control officer to prevent alien's departure from the United States.

(a) No alien shall depart, or attempt to depart, from the United States if his departure would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States under the provisions of § 46.3. Any departure-control officer who knows or has reason to believe that the case of an alien in the United States comes within the provisions of § 46.3 shall temporarily prevent the departure of such alien from the United States and shall serve him with a written temporary order directing him not to depart, or attempt to depart, from the United States until notified of the revocation of the order.

(b) The written order temporarily preventing an alien, other than an enemy alien, from departing from the United States shall become final 15 days after the date of service thereof upon the alien, unless prior thereto the alien requests a hearing as hereinafter provided. At such time as the alien is served with an order temporarily preventing his departure from the United States, he shall be notified in writing concerning the provisions of this paragraph, and shall be advised of his right to request a hearing if entitled thereto under § 46.4. In the case of an enemy alien, the written order preventing departure shall become final on the date of its service upon the alien.

(c) Any alien who seeks to depart from the United States may be required, in the discretion of the departure-control officer, to be examined under oath and to submit for official inspection all documents, articles, and other property in his possession which are being removed from the United States upon, or in connection with, the alien's departure. The departure-control officer may permit such other persons, including officials of the Department of State and interpreters, to participate in such examination or inspection and may exclude from presence at such examination or inspection any person whose presence would not further the objectives of such examination or inspection. The departure-control officer shall temporarily prevent the departure of any alien who refuses to submit to such examination or inspection, and may, if necessary to cause the alien to submit to such examination or inspection, take possession of the alien's passport or other travel document or issue a subpoena requiring the alien to submit to such examination or inspection.
§ 46.3

Aliens whose departure is deemed prejudicial to the interests of the United States.

The departure from the United States of any alien within one or more of the following categories shall be deemed prejudicial to the interest of the United States:

(a) Any alien who is in possession of, and who is believed likely to disclose to unauthorized persons, information concerning the plans, preparations, equipment, or establishments for the national defense and security of the United States.

(b) Any alien who seeks to depart from the United States to engage in, or who is likely to engage in, activities of any kind designed to obstruct, impede, retard, delay or counteract the effectiveness of the national defense of the United States or the measures adopted by the United States or the United Nations for the defense of any other country.

(c) Any alien who seeks to depart from the United States to engage in, or who is likely to engage in, activities which would obstruct, impede, retard, delay, or counteract the effectiveness of any plans made or action taken by any country cooperating with the United States in measures adopted to promote the peace, defense, or safety of the United States or such other country.

(d) Any alien who seeks to depart from the United States for the purpose of organizing, directing, or participating in any rebellion, insurrection, or violent uprising in or against the United States or a country allied with the United States, or of waging war against the United States or its allies, or of destroying, or depriving the United States of sources of supplies or materials vital to the national defense of the United States, or to the effectiveness of the measures adopted by the United States for its defense, or for the defense of any other country allied with the United States.

(e) Any alien who is subject to registration for training and service in the Armed Forces of the United States and who fails to present a Registration Certificate (SSS Form No. 2) showing that he has complied with his obligation to register under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended.

(f) Any alien who is a fugitive from justice on account of an offense punishable in the United States.

(g) Any alien who is needed in the United States as a witness in, or as a party to, any criminal case under investigation or pending in a court in the United States: Provided, That any alien who is a witness in, or a party to, any criminal case pending in any criminal court proceeding may be permitted to depart from the United States with the consent of the appropriate prosecuting authority, unless such alien is otherwise prohibited from departing under the provisions of this part.

(h) Any alien who is needed in the United States in connection with any investigation or proceeding being, or soon to be, conducted by any official executive, legislative, or judicial agency in the United States or by any governmental committee, board, bureau, commission, or body in the United States, whether national, state, or local.

(i) Any alien whose technical or scientific training and knowledge might be utilized by an enemy or a potential enemy of the United States to undermine and defeat the military and defensive operations of the United States or of any nation cooperating with the United States in the interests of collective security.

(j) Any alien, where doubt exists whether such alien is departing or seeking to depart from the United States voluntarily except an alien who is departing or seeking to depart subject to an order issued in extradition, exclusion, or deportation proceedings.

(k) Any alien whose case does not fall within any of the categories described in paragraphs (a) to (j), inclusive, of this section, but which involves circumstances of a similar character rendering the alien's departure prejudicial to the interests of the United States.
§ 46.4

Procedure in case of alien prevented from departing from the United States.

(a) Any alien, other than an enemy alien, whose departure has been temporarily prevented under the provisions of § 46.2 may, within 15 days of the service upon him of the written order temporarily preventing his departure, request a hearing before a special inquiry officer. The alien's request for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be addressed to the district director having administrative jurisdiction over the alien's place of residence. If the alien's request for a hearing is timely made, the district director shall schedule a hearing before a special inquiry officer, and notice of such hearing shall be given to the alien. The notice of hearing shall, as specifically as security considerations permit, inform the alien of the nature of the case against him, shall fix the time and place of the hearing, and shall inform the alien of his right to be represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of his own choosing.

(b) Every alien for whom a hearing has been scheduled under paragraph (a) of this section shall be entitled (1) to appear in person before the special inquiry officer, (2) to be represented by counsel of his own choice, (3) to have the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, (4) to cross-examine the witnesses who appear at the hearing, except that if, in the course of the examination, it appears that further examination may divulge information of a confidential or security nature, the special inquiry officer may, in his discretion, preclude further examination of the witness with respect to such matters, (5) to examine any evidence in possession of the Government which is to be considered in the disposition of the case, provided that such evidence is not of a confidential or security nature the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States, (6) to have the time and opportunity to produce evidence and witnesses on his own behalf, and (7) to reasonable continuances upon request, for good cause shown.

(c) Any special inquiry officer who is assigned to conduct the hearing provided for in this section shall have the authority to: (1) Administer oaths and affirmations, (2) present and receive evidence, (3) interrogate, examine, and cross-examine under oath or affirmation both the alien and witnesses, (4) rule upon all objections to the introduction of evidence or motions made during the course of the hearing, (5) take or cause depositions to be taken, (6) issue subpoenas, and (7) take any further action consistent with applicable provisions of law, executive orders, proclamations, and regulations.
§ 46.5

Hearing procedure before special inquiry officer.

(a) The hearing before the special inquiry officer shall be conducted in accordance with the following procedure:

(1) The special inquiry officer shall advise the alien of the rights and privileges accorded him under the provisions of § 46.4.

(2) The special inquiry officer shall enter of record (i) a copy of the order served upon the alien temporarily preventing his departure from the United States, and (ii) a copy of the notice of hearing furnished the alien.

(3) The alien shall be interrogated by the special inquiry officer as to the matters considered pertinent to the proceeding, with opportunity reserved to the alien to testify thereafter in his own behalf, if he so chooses.

(4) The special inquiry officer shall present on behalf of the Government such evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and the certificates or written statements of Government officials or other persons, as may be necessary and available. In the event such certificates or statements are received in evidence, the alien may request and, in the discretion of the special inquiry officer, be given an opportunity to interrogate such officials or persons, by deposition or otherwise, at a time and place and in a manner fixed by the special inquiry officer: Provided, That when in the judgment of the special inquiry officer any evidence relative to the disposition of the case is of a confidential or security nature the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States, such evidence shall not be presented at the hearing but shall be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision in the case.

(5) The alien may present such additional evidence, including the testimony of witnesses, as is pertinent and available.

(b) A complete verbatim transcript of the hearing, except statements made off the record, shall be recorded. The alien shall be entitled, upon request, to the loan of a copy of the transcript, without cost, subject to reasonable conditions governing its use.

(c) Following the completion of the hearing, the special inquiry officer shall make and render a recommended decision in the case, which shall be governed by and based upon the evidence presented at the hearing and any evidence of a confidential or security nature which the Government may have in its possession. The decision of the special inquiry officer shall recommend (1) that the temporary order preventing the departure of the alien from the United States be made final, or (2) that the temporary order preventing the departure of the alien from the United States be revoked. This recommended decision of the special inquiry officer shall be made in writing and shall set forth the officer's reasons for such decision. The alien concerned shall at his request be furnished a copy of the recommended decision of the special inquiry officer, and shall be allowed a reasonable time, not to exceed 10 days, in which to submit representations with respect thereto in writing.

(d) As soon as practicable after the completion of the hearing and the rendering of a decision by the special inquiry officer, the district director shall forward the entire record of the case, including the recommended decision of the special inquiry officer and any written representations submitted by the alien, to the regional commissioner having jurisdiction over his district. After reviewing the record, the regional commissioner shall render a decision in the case, which shall be based upon the evidence in the record and on any evidence or information of a confidential or security nature which he deems pertinent. Whenever any decision is based in whole or in part on confidential or security information not included in the record, the decision shall state that such information was considered. A copy of the regional commissioner's decision shall be furnished the alien, or his attorney or representative. No administrative appeal shall lie from the regional commissioner's decision.

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs referred to in section 104(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or such other officers of the Department of State as he may designate, after consultation with the Commissioner, or such other officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service as he may designate, may at any time permit the departure of an individual alien or of a group of aliens from the United States if he determines that such action would be in the national interest. If the Administrator specifically requests the Commissioner to prevent the departure of a particular alien or of a group of aliens, the Commissioner shall not permit the departure of such alien or aliens until he has consulted with the Administrator.

(f) In any case arising under §§ 46.1 to 46.7, the Administrator shall, at his request, be kept advised, in as much detail as he may indicate is necessary, of the facts and of any action taken or proposed.
All of that clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with US Citizens, US passports or unpaid child support. That is a fact.

What it does do is clearly outline how the process works, how the representation part works, and the appeal process works. All of which the other poster stated did not exist because he incorrectly attempted to establish a connection with no-fly lists that did not and does not exist.

I understand the feelings that many have with TSA and how they do business. I understand the mistrust that develops with the lack of information concerning how things work. In some cases, I share in those feelings. However, just because TSA falls under DHS does not mean the other 21 agencies that fall under DHS operate the same way. There is a wealth of information that describes how CBP will operate in most situations. CBP certainly is not perfect and I have and will point out when I personally disagree with how something was handled.

I recognize that in some cases there are better ways to do things. I also recognize that way the laws of the United States are written the agency can not do those better ways in till the laws are changed. The agency doesn't get to do that. That comes from Congress. It doesn't do much good to blame the agency when they can't do much about it.


FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 8:32 pm
  #71  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by mbstone
22 CFR 46? What a hoot.

(h) The term depart from the United States means depart by land, water, or air (1) from the United States for any foreign place, or (2) from one geographical part of the United States for a separate geographical part of the United States


I always figured that if I took the subway to Brooklyn I'd be traveling to a foreign country, but I never knew this was codified in the law.
It helps and is much less of a misrepresentation if you post all the relevant paragraphs as it changes the meaning considerably:

§ 46.1

Definitions.

For the purposes of this part:

(a) The term alien means any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States.

(b) The term Commissioner means the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization.

(c) The term regional commissioner means an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service duly appointed or designated as a regional commissioner, or an officer who has been designated to act as a regional commissioner.

(d) The term district director means an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service duly appointed or designated as a district director, or an officer who has been designated to act as a district director.

(e) The term United States means the several States, the District of Columbia, the Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Swains Island, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and all other territory and waters, continental and insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(f) The term continental United States means the District of Columbia and the several States, except Alaska and Hawaii.

(g) The term geographical part of the United States means (1) the continental United States, (2) Alaska, (3) Hawaii, (4) Puerto Rico, (5) the Virgin Islands, (6) Guam, (7) the Canal Zone, (8) American Samoa, (9) Swains Island, or (10) the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

(h) The term depart from the United States means depart by land, water, or air (1) from the United States for any foreign place, or (2) from one geographical part of the United States for a separate geographical part of the United States: Provided, That a trip or journey upon a public ferry, passenger vessel sailing coastwise on a fixed schedule, excursion vessel, or aircraft, having both termini in the continental United States or in any one of the other geographical parts of the United States and not touching any territory or waters under the jurisdiction or control of a foreign power, shall not be deemed a departure from the United States.

(i) The term departure-control officer means any immigration officer as defined in the regulations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who is designated to supervise the departure of aliens, or any officer or employee of the United States designated by the Governor of the Canal Zone, the High Commissioner of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or the governor of an outlying possession of the United States, to supervise the departure of aliens.

(j) The term port of departure means a port in the continental United States, Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, designated as a port of entry by the Attorney General or by the Commissioner, or in exceptional circumstances such other place as the departure-control officer may, in his discretion, designate in an individual case, or a port in American Samoa, Swains Island, the Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, designated as a port of entry by the chief executive officer thereof.

(k) The term special inquiry officer shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in section 101(b)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
You really have to include the whole sentence to get the meaning.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 8:39 pm
  #72  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,237
Originally Posted by Firebug4
It helps and is much less of a misrepresentation if you post all the relevant paragraphs as it changes the meaning considerably:



You really have to include the whole sentence to get the meaning.

FB
I didn't know the 'Canal Zone' was still considered part of the 'geographical' US.
chollie is online now  
Old May 26, 2013, 8:49 pm
  #73  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by Firebug4
I have attempted to limit my comments to the topic of the original post which was Immigration exit controls for visitors to the United States.
There is evidence above that shows that the "attempt", if that is even what it was, has not really succeeded.

It helps to practice what is preached, but we have a breach in practice evidenced above with the personalization nonsense.

Originally Posted by Firebug4
You and another poster chose to throw in references to child support and US passports. These have nothing to do with Immigration exit controls for visitors to the United States.
The reference I made was in response to an element in your post that ran contrary to the national facts in play currently.

Originally Posted by Firebug4
As to what you believe to be "facts", what happens internationally in other countries does not demonstrate that it will happen in the United States. Again, laws in different countries can be and are significantly different. This means that many things that occur in other countries will not occur in the US and that works the other way as well.
That's not news to me.

Originally Posted by Firebug4
You tend to challenge a lot of things here. Yet, you never back those challenges up with citations of law or even specific examples. You just say in your favorite style of double speak "I heard once from such and such that this might of happened or is possible to maybe happen" and call that a fact.
I'm not the topic of the discussion.

Originally Posted by Firebug4
What you call a misrepresentation is me telling someone that a US Citizen is not going to be given a do not depart order using Immigration exit controls for visitors to the United States. I can back that up with chapter and verse from the laws and regulations and I will yet again word for word.
That is not an accurate representation of what I stated. In response to this:

Originally Posted by Firebug4
As for your example of being in arrears on child support being used to prohibit someone from leaving the country, I don't believe under the current language of the regulation that would rise to level of national interest.
I posted this:

Originally Posted by GUWonder
]It does rise to the level of national interest (as evidenced in 1996 and 1997 and since), and passport denial is a traditional form of exit control.

We have a national policy of routinely denying US passports to US citizens who have been reported (by states to HHS and, through it, to State), as owing above a certain stipulated unpaid child support amount of $2,500 or more. There are exceptions, but the exception requests (with regard to US P type) are more frequently denied than used to be the case.

US dual-citizens have an easier time around this sort of exit control than non-dual-citizens, but the circumvention of this form of US exit control by US dual-citizens may involve inconvenience to say the least.
The indication that child support debts don't arise to the level of a national interest is a misrepresenation of the facts in play already.

We had legislation passed in 1996 to handmaiden the US passport denial program.

We have passport denial is a form of exit control.

Originally Posted by Firebugr4
That is your version of a fact.
The version of fact signed into law by a POTUS whom I served too.

Originally Posted by Firebug4
I understand the feelings that many have with TSA and how they do business. I understand the mistrust that develops with the lack of information concerning how things work. In some cases, I share in those feelings. However, just because TSA falls under DHS does not mean the other 21 agencies that fall under DHS operate the same way. There is a wealth of information that describes how CBP will operate in most situations. CBP certainly is not perfect and I have and will point out when I personally disagree with how something was handled.
Indeed.

Originally Posted by Firebug4
I recognize that in some cases there are better ways to do things. I also recognize that way the laws of the United States are written the agency can not do those better ways in till the laws are changed. The agency doesn't get to do that. That comes from Congress. It doesn't do much good to blame the agency when they can't do much about it.
Sure there are constraints and limits on what a department or agency can lawfully do. However, departments/agencies have a way to get things changed on the Hill too; and more than one Department/Agency has figured out a way to run circles around even Congressional intent as memorialized in signed legislation; and more than one Department/Agency has figured out a way to run circles around even the White House.

By the way, blaming agencies can be a very effective way to get Congress to change laws that the agencies use; and blaming agencies can be a very effective way to get agency practices to change in large or small part. It's no surprise that such agencies have their own PR resources and media-monitoring efforts.
GUWonder is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 10:34 pm
  #74  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by GUWonder
There is evidence above that shows that the "attempt", if that is even what it was, has not really succeeded.

It helps to practice what is preached, but we have a breach in practice evidenced above with the personalization nonsense.



The reference I made was in response to an element in your post that ran contrary to the national facts in play currently.



That's not news to me.



I'm not the topic of the discussion.



That is not an accurate representation of what I stated. In response to this:



I posted this:



The indication that child support debts don't arise to the level of a national interest is a misrepresenation of the facts in play already.

We had legislation passed in 1996 to handmaiden the US passport denial program.

We have passport denial is a form of exit control.



The version of fact signed into law by a POTUS whom I served too.



Indeed.



Sure there are constraints and limits on what a department or agency can lawfully do. However, departments/agencies have a way to get things changed on the Hill too; and more than one Department/Agency has figured out a way to run circles around even Congressional intent as memorialized in signed legislation; and more than one Department/Agency has figured out a way to run circles around even the White House.

By the way, blaming agencies can be a very effective way to get Congress to change laws that the agencies use; and blaming agencies can be a very effective way to get agency practices to change in large or small part. It's no surprise that such agencies have their own PR resources and media-monitoring efforts.
and again you cite no examples to your references. That does not make them facts. You just can not accept that Immigration exit controls for foreign visitors has absolutely nothing to do with US Passports, US citizens or unpaid child support.

If you think it does post the Federal law, or regulation that supports it. If you have a specific example that can be researched then cite it. Otherwise, it is not a fact. It is just your assertion that you will not support with information that can be explored. Fancy way of saying that it is nothing more than your opinion which you are entitled to however, don't expect folks to take it as fact when you refuse to support it.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 11:53 pm
  #75  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: HEL
Programs: lots of shiny metal cards
Posts: 14,083
I think we all miss the point here.

"However, members of the Gang of Eight, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), said that a full biometric tracking system could cost as much as $25 billion to implement, and would thus prove too expensive. Schumer supported the more limited Hatch proposal on Monday. "
WilcoRoger is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.