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.