The United States, until February of this year, always adhered to the long-established legal concept that travel is a right, not a privilege, and any person who could produce proof of citizenship and meet the other requirements (e.g., fill in an application form, provide photos that meet the requirements, etc.) was entitled to a passport. Naturally, there are exceptions that applied to people awaiting trial, etc., but that is no different than other bail arrangements that might forbid a person from leaving the state, leaving the city or even their own house and being compelled to wear a monitoring device while waiting for trial, but of course the fact that this is true does not imply that being able to leave your house is a "privilege" any more than getting a passport.

Since February, the USA has now claimed that entering the USA is limited to those with passports, and it is also claiming the right to be able to refuse passports. However, I have little doubt that the first time they attempt to do so, they will be taken to court and lose -- the assertion is so obviously unconstitutional I cannot imagine it ever holding up in court.

I'm not sure where you are getting the info that visa overstayers are routinely arrested -- I have overstayed visas dozens of times. Usually, nobody cares. Sometimes, you get a lecture. A few times, I've gotten a lecture and a small fine. "Arrest" has never even been discussed as a remote possibility.

I would assume that someone wearing a 'monitoring device' would set off alarms going through Security. So whether they were traveling domestically, in state or otherwise, they would be required to show some proof of being allowed to travel ?:confused:

The US has always required a passport to enter, except for Canadians, and possibly Mexicans. The border guards on the Canadian border are experienced in checking Canadian citizenship documents, so they were allowed to use them. If you're coming from any other country, a passport was always needed.

The US can deny anyone entry, even if they have a passport, so I don't know if that is new...

I think the proper word I should've used was "detained", not arrested. As for countries that do this routinely at the airport I can think immediately of Japan.

Anyways, the point was that, correct me if I'm wrong, talking specifically about the US, as there are no exit procedures, if the CBP, the Border Patrol or whoever catches you overstaying, you're treated as a potential immigrant, detained, deported and barred from entering the US in some time or not able to use the VWP. I have not seen this happening in US airports because an airline tattled a passenger, therefore there are not even de facto exit procedures in the US.

I don't think the border patrol gives my fellow mexicans just "a lecture" when they enter the US on a tourist visa they overstay and they check their papers at their checkpoints in US highways

Yes, but the USA did not require passports of AMERICANS returning to their own country until February of this year. And, as you correctly point out, citizens of a number of other North American countries have been able to visit without passports until recently.

Well, if the "monitoring device" is worth anything, it sets off an alarm a long time before the monitoree gets anywhere near a border.

Probably right, and yet another reason why Mexico should be pissed off, since I and many, many other US passports holders have worked "informally" in Mexico without suffering any problems.

But, most countries do require you to have a passport to leave, so its kind of a moot point. I don't know if an American could leave the EU without a passport, so one would've been required there before February.