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.