Just for fun, I filled it out. 17 minutes, missing 2 street addresses that I would need to get from my parents - probably 5 minutes, but I didn't feel like bothering them.

It really didn't seem that onerous for the benefits/rights I gain from a US passport. Frankly, it seems shorter than what I filled out for my kids a few years ago.

No OECD country that is a liberal representative democracy is as ridiculous as to require such extensive disclosure for its adult citizens to have a chance to perhaps get a passport.

The only places where I've seen such an extensive demand for information prior to issuing passports to persons claiming to be its citizens are less developed countries that have used such approaches to deny "undesirable" citizens from having a chance to legally leave the country or to create opportunities to "prosecute" -- rather persecute -- them or their family -- parents included ;) -- and/or friends even when their citizenship is not in much doubt or not in doubt at all.

passport renewals are still quite simple, guess this just means i can expect to be flying with a bunch of highly educated individuals from now on....or highly determined?

our politicians really are ridiculous

First-time passport applications DS-11 are still quite simple as well (compared to most other countries). If you cannot prove your citizenship using conventional means, then you are screwed. But then again, you would be screwed in most of countries in the world.

I have a question to forum members who decry this bio questionnaire - how would you propose for individuals to prove their citizenship status if their births were never recorded in any official registry?

Also, for the sake of fairness, the title should be changed because now it appears that this passport application is for every US citizen whereas in reality it is only for a few.

There is no rhyme or reason with the government. In FL it was actually easier for me to get my daughters passport than her drivers license. Since she was under 18 I had to show her passport or birth certificate, her original SS card and then my identification and proof of my residence of which my FL DL did not qualify:confused: but which a utility bill with my address did :rolleyes:

Using feasible, reasonable means. This questionnaire does not fall into that category. It's like having to recite every license plate you and your family were ever issued in order to get a drivers license. Most people wouldn't know; I can't even recall the one I have now. That doesn't make me a suspicious applicant, it makes me normal.

The problem is, a questionnaire like this is a potential weapon against anybody. There's no statutory limit on its use. If the government wanted to prevent most Americans traveling abroad it could broaden the use of this thing at will.

Americans who favor harsh treatment for people they see as special-category cases should think about how they'd like to be subject to the same stuff.

What would you characterize as feasible and reasonable, for a person who had difficulty in proving their citizenship through traditional means?

A ten-year history, max. I can reasonably account for myself back to 2001: employer, addresses, cars I owned, finances. I cannot tell you the name of the doctor that delivered me in 1960, nor the zip code of the house I was carried home to. (It was pre-zip code days actually.) That doesn't mean I'm not an American citizen.

Potential is a key word. You can 'win' any argument by claiming that anything can be potentially used against anybody. This particular form is for those who cannot prove their citizenship using conventional set of documents - it is a big deal, you cannot just write an affidavit that you were born there on that day and therefore you are a citizen. You have to prove it.

However, our conversation is not about this. The title and the first post are misleading because it is not about what can potentially happen, it is about what is happening now.

The questions are the same as those one must answer to get a security clearance. Last time I had current knowlege of such matters, the investigation phase had a backlog of 6 months to a year, even for a candy level like Secret. That's for a lot fewer applicants than 75,000.

So if you just made up your answers, the odds of anyone actually checking are near zero.

The above claim is a false claim.

Given the form becomes a requirement -- and the government wants it to be a requirement for whomever it decides it wants to target -- the submitted form actually will create further legal basis upon which the government is legally empowered to prosecute or otherwise intimidate persons who are subjected to the form (and/or other parties associated with the applicant) and submit it as part of an attempted passport approval process.

It's not about the odds of anyone checking the information -- the information is to be analyzed (whether properly or not) -- but rather it is about creating a basis upon which to deny or delay issuance of a passport or otherwise ensure trouble for the targeted party and/or their associates.

I won't hazard a guess on the number of security clearance granted to Americans still alive (even some dead people get them), but some such persons will also be subjected to denial or delay of passport issuance given the demand to complete this form as well.

Most of the people applying for passports won't be those seeking a government security clearance so as to attain or maintain employment with relevant governmental organizations or government-retained/-contracted parties, so treating most such persons in the same manner as (or actually worse than) those seeking to live on the federally-funded udder is but for the government to do what I noted in this and other posts on this topic.

Exactly. And just on conceptual terms, government should be assigned limited powers by the people, not unlimited potential for abuse in the vague expectation it won't be used.