WalterSFO

I don't want to name names because that will turn this into a political debate.

Several members of Congress want to include a line and if passed, will "order" the Department of State to invalidate US passports for travel to North Korea. Not actually barring travel, which is impossible to do, but to include a pre-printed line in any newly-issued US passports(current and the re-designed one) to say:

"This passport is not valid for travel to North Korea, aka Democratic People's Republic of Korea(DPRK)"

Is this even constitutional to restrict the movement of US citizens? I get why they want to do it because of the recent tragic murder of a young US citizen in North Korea... but still...

How many other countries places such restrictions on their passports?

Boggie Dog

How was travel to Cuba restricted?

GUWonder

At least in the past forty years or so, not by such language in ordinary, full validity US passports. I'll have to access passports issued in the 1960s too, but I don't recall seeing such language in ordinary US passport blanks produced and used from the Nixon-Ford years forward.

I've seen such lanaguage -- at least for some other places -- in passports issued by other countries in the world, with restrictions against travel to places run by the apartheid-era regime of South Africa and/or by Israel being the most prevalent sort of restriction for foreign passports submitted to US embassies/consulates for consular services.

WalterSFO

I wonder if Malaysian or Pakistani passport still say it's not valid for travel to Israel?

GUWonder

Lots of countries have had passports issued within the past 40 years that had language against travel to apartheid-era South Africa and/or to Israel. How they refer in passports to the areas restricted does vary still. Some "banned" countries ignore such language in passports; but a passport-holder/applicant using a passport against the conditions assigned by the relevant passport-issuing authority could be legally actionable and result in passport invalidation or even worse under the law in a jurisdiction of relevance.

Just because Congress may pass a bill that even becomes law and includes language about how the Executive should or should not issue passports doesn't necessarily mean that the law will be legally implemented by the Executive upon a bill becoming law.

Often1

Couldn't find whatever OP is referring to and it would be helpful if he provided the detail as it's hardly political to provide information which should be somewhere public if it exists.

There is already legislation pending which would require a Treasury license for any direct or indirect expenditure in PDRK with a likely subsequent action which would prohibit Treasury from issuing licenses; the Secretary of State is considering outright prohibition of travel, and there are numerous other similar considerations.

Of course Congress, which authorizes passports in the first instance, could require any language it wants on the document, but query whether that alone would matter to anybody because it is unlikely that PDRK border officials are likely to feel bound by the language.

Congress could also enforce all of this by prohibiting the use by the State Dept of funds to issue passports which do not include the language. That has been a favorite of Congress to limit Executive Branch conduct over the past decade. E.g., individuals may not possess fully auto firearms without a permit issued by ATFE. But, ATFE is prohibited from expending funds to issue the permits. So, no permits.

GUWonder

Congress can't enforce much of anything when it comes to passports. There is the matter of the "Jerusalem in US passport" case, resolved in favor of the Executive.

Ordinary US passports are funded by user fees.

And you can bet that we will still be enabling Executive and Legislative branch and some of our other favorites to use official and diplomatic US passports to go wherever the Executive fancies we have people.

And you can bet that Congress will not dare to anger all US passport applicants by trying to shut down State on something like this (were State/POTUS even interested in opposing such language).

Jaimito Cartero

Such a restriction is just more likely to cause problems when flying to South Korea, by confused agents denying a ticket.

GUWonder

Reminds me of a US airline agent at a sleepy outstation in the 1980s refusing to check in an Indian passport holder on travel to a part of Africa because the passport had a prohibition in it against South Africa.

PTravel

This is a bit outside my area of expertise but, no, it should not be constitutional to restrict the movement of US citizens. Additionally, this violates separation of powers, as the State Department is under the Executive, not under the Legislative.

Travel to Cuba was never restricted. Spending money in Cuba was restricted. This was a Treasury regulation, not a State Department regulation.


Okay, but it's not hard to guess.

GUWonder

Travel to Cuba was mostly restricted via banning Americans from engaging in financial transactions with or in Cuba. An economic embargo, not a travel ban per se. This meant even during the heights of the Cold War, US citizens could go to Cuba as long as they didn't need to spend any money to do so or got a waiver from the Executive -- mainly Treasury OFAC -- to do so.

Beltway2A

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Zemel v. Rusk clearly upheld State's refusal to validate passports for travel to Cuba. There's maybe a separation of powers issue, but it has nothing to do with restricting the movement of citizens.

TWA884

As far as I can tell, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has been considering such a ban for a couple of months. Proposed legislation in Congress would require US citizens to obtain a license from the Treasury Department to travel to North Korea and tourists would not be issued such licenses.

MSPeconomist

Didn't travel to Cuba go through such licenses in the past?

GUWonder

Yes. He wants reduced chances of additional American visitors ending up as a North Korean bargaining chip in negotiations. Not that I find that to be a reason to make me a fan of US passports being further restricted. And my bet is that if such a restriction goes into place for one country, then sooner or later it will involve even further restrictions for yet more places.

OFAC licensing.

But the OFAC restrictions on Cuba and those on North Korea have never been a complete copy of each other.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...nts/nkorea.pdf

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...a_faqs_new.pdf