fly-yul

There was a trial program of US-Visit biometric kiosks that ended in 2007.

I don't think having an exit control is inherently a bad thing. Many countries around the world have a departure passport control.

Spiff

I think it's reprehensible. No one should have to seek permission to leave a country.

kakapo24

I don't see how this is going to stop people overstaying. If they are going to stay they will.

i'm not convinced that it will work better than just scaning the passport. How often does someone leave on Mr X's passport just to hide the fact that Mr X hasn't left.

My main grumble is that this will just create more dealys and queues.

Now if it could be used to do away with the TSA insiting on their ID checks, that would be soming.

mbstone

Exit visas, and internal passports, used to symbolize the difference between our country and totalitarian regimes. There may not yet be a "departure passport control," but the hidden and anonymous goons at the CTC still decide whether or not you may fly, or leave the USA, today.

GUWonder

We do have electronic departure passport controls of sort. It is, in part at least, the reason why some flights have additional DHS checking at the gate for international flights out of the US.

Himeno

They already tried this. They had US-VISIT departure kiosks set up in international departures areas of a few airports in 2006 through 2008. You had to insert the MRZ of your passport, the kiosk would take biometric data to match to the US-VISIT entry record (fingerprints, photo) then print out a receipt.

It didn't work then, it won't work now.

alanR

What happens if you "fail" the test? Are you required to stay in the US?

König

It is amazing that some people equate exit passport checks with having internal passports and needing exit visas. The overwhelming majority of countries have outbound passport congrol, and so far nobody compared them to the USSR just for having exit checks. But somehow if the USA follows fhe suit and implements those checks, then suddenly we will become something akin to the USSR. Some people are really paranoidal about this matter.

By the way, having to go through the exit passport checks is not the same as asking for a permission to leave the country, far from it. There are instances in which a person might be denied leaving the country, and all these instances are outlined in the corresponding legislative acts. Exit passport checks would just provide for better enforcement of these laws. Nobody would be able to arbitrarily deny you the right to leave the country. One may argue that the government should have the right to know who is leaving the country just as it has (and exercise) the right to know who is coming in.

Wally Bird

Including fingerprinting?

chollie

(bolding mine)

I see a major inconsistency between these two statements.

We have already had people put on the DHS 'watch' lists - people like the late Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, the late Sen. Ted Stevens wife (her name fuzzy-matched the name of a singer, Cat Stevens), a journalist who was suddenly on the list after working on a story that some DHS folks didn't like.

Like the IRS (and other government bureaucracies), there's inadequate oversight to ensure that what is supposed to happen, what is allowed to happen is what actually does take place. DHS is far worse than IRS, IMHO, because of the secretive, completely opaque nature of its actions. I can appeal a faulty IRS judgment based on incorrect data (or personal or political vengeance); I can't appeal a faulty DHS restriction based on incorrect data or personal or political vengeance because DHS will not even acknowledge the restriction.

Lucky connected people like Kennedy, Gore and Stevens were able to get their names (or Stevens' wife's name) removed from the lists, but no one ever was able to get an explanation of who put them on the list and why.

Think it can't happen? UK works the same way. An immigration official in the UK who wasn't happy in his marriage waited until his wife went to Pakistan for a visit. He entered her name on the NFL list. She spent three years unable to fly or re-enter the UK because she was on a terrorist watch list with no rights and no way to appeal or to even find out how she got on the list in the first place.

How did it get discovered? Her husband was up for a promotion, and a routine security check discovered that his wife was on the NFL (ie, it appeared that he was married to a terrorist and hadn't told his bosses). He confessed and got sacked. News reports fail to mention whether or not the organization removed the flag on his wife's name.

mbstone

OK, show me the clearly defined legislative criteria for being added to the no-fly list, and the due process protections for people who believe they were wrongfully denied permission to travel.

mbstone

.....

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

chollie

It is relevant because the same parent agency known for a particular lack of transparency, refusal to allow an open appeals process, and constant mission creep would be in charge of any such exit controls.

Given the parent agency's track record with the NFL list and TSA checkpoints, it is not unreasonable to fear opaque exit refusals based on information unavailable to the citizen, with no right of appeal. It is not hard to see the potential for abuse if exit restrictions operate like NFL restrictions. A CBP employee with a grudge and access could put someone's name on the 'No Exit' list with impunity. Unacceptable.

We have had TSOs at checkpoints summon LE for 'large' amounts of cash and, in one case, a woman with consecutive checks in her pocket (remind me how they were a threat to aviation?). IIRC, there have been suggestions (don't know if they were ever implemented) to prevent men in arrears on child support to be prohibited from leaving the country.

Canada has taken well-intended entry requirements to sometimes ridiculous extremes (college curfew violation 20 years ago). It's not hard to see US CBP adopting Canada's 'stringent' entry requirements as a basis for exit requirements and expanding on them.

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