YuropFlyer

Is there no "emergency passport" station at the major US airports? In Switzerland and Germany (Sorry, no other experience) the Kantonspolizei / Bundespolizei (Police station) do have a special "Notpassbüro" (Emergency passport office) in the airports where they can produce you a new emergency passport. It's not cheap (About 160$) and only valid for 1 year, so I'm sure they're actually making some money with it, kind of a win-win situation (You may be able to fly, the state gets some money)

GUWonder

No, the US has no such things at any commercial airports in the US. If there is a need for an emergency US passport, it must ordinarily be done at one of the (sort of growing) number of US Passport Agency offices in major US city centers or via the US Department of State's ACS facilities at US Embassies/Consulates outside of the US.

The US has been encouraging various countries (in Europe and elsewhere) to stop issuing at-airport "emergency passports" and to further centralize passport-issuance locations/processes. And those US Government efforts are resulting in changed procedures in Europe and elsewhere.

If an American is very well politically-connected and/or there is a national interest/security directive of some sort issued or utilized, we do make arrangements to get them into or out of the country even without a US passport. But for tourist purposes, not generally feasible for US citizens traveling by air.

The US Government's idea of an emergency passport for ordinary tourist/business purposes is basically that of a visa-type sticker with the biodata info being placed in the biodata page of a standard US passport and that passport having a very short-duration or other limited-use constriction placed on it. This is done primarily at US Embassies/Consulates and is not available at any airports used for commercial passenger traffic. Such things are not authorized for general ordinary passport issuance at US Passport Agency offices in the US or elsewhere in the country.

GUWonder

Your definition of a "right" as something that cannot be taken away is the least accurate definition of a "right" that has ever existed in the history of human affairs and indicative of muddy thinking on this matter. Which constitution or charter "cannot be taken away"? If your line of reasoning were even consistent, nothing would be a "right" as there is no such thing as an eternal constitution or charter in the affairs of man-created state affairs.

Constitutions and other legal charters are also laws passed by some sort of legislative-type assemblies or by referendums of some sort or another. Whether or not the body law recognizing a right are somewhat or a lot more difficult to change than others doesn't really change the current state of affairs with regard to a current right.

What I mentioned is really a right based on current laws (including international treaty obligations of some sort or another) and upheld by court rulings (domestic and/or international courts), and they are no less "rights" than the kinds of rights that are recognized by the US Constitution's so-called Bill of Rights.

Good luck trying to "legally" deport a US citizen father from, or prevent entry to a US citizen father in, the EU who is there to take care of their minor Belgian or Swedish child. It would be in violation of the rights of the American person in much the same way that it is a violation of the US citizen's rights when US DHS deports a US citizen from the US. Violations of such rights do happen. But the right is still there under the law.

The US and Canada have lesser rights for citizens who are minor children with foreign parent(s) and for the foreign parent(s) of such child(ren) than the EU does. There really is no getting around that regardless of the petty nationalism that finds its home just about everywhere.

gglave

...and this 'right' is enshrined in the Swedish constitution?

GUWonder

I indicated earlier from where the right arises. Court-determined obligations and international treaty obligations of a country or group of countries create rights too. The rights arise from what I indicated earlier.

aktchi

Perhaps we need to make a couple small but useful distinctions here.

(1) You may have the right to enter a particular country, but since everyone doesn't have the same right, you may need to demonstrate it. That's what various documents are for.

(2) Let's say the immigration people, even if takes longer, will find some way of checking your identity without a passport and let you in. With biometric technology, that is a plausible future scenario. However, the airline doesn't know that and, as a private company, would be within its rights to deny you boarding.

So that's what we are talking about in practice. The airline needs to be convinced that you will be admitted and not become a burden on its resources.

GUWonder

Indeed.

Many an airline in many a markets may be fined for transport of persons denied entry under some conditions; but amongst the biggest exceptions to that are exceptions for airlines that transported persons who claim refugee or asylum status with or without passports. Again, international treaty obligations often come into play in this matter too.

deniah

i took a train from Finland to Russia, and there was a passport check on the train.

however, bussing from Russia to Estonia, i dont *remember* having a border stop.

though its been a number of years, and alcohol may have wiped away some of those memories

Kagehitokiri

how were they allowed to book without passport info?

pinniped

The discussion of "rights" seems to be semantic at this point. Some people in the world have rights to international travel; some don't. Some have rights on paper but practical impediments make it impossible.

But on some of these that we're discussing here - claiming a religious or ancestral reason to visit a foreign land, presumably in a greater/longer capacity than that of a normal tourist - don't you still need the underlying passport to establish your identity and (usually) obtain a visa?

GUWonder

It depends upon the country and the circumstances applicable to the foreigner. A lot of countries -- including at least most (if not all) of the OECD countries -- have ways to regularize and/or admit people who present themselves at a port of entry even when the foreigers are without a passport but have a claim to some sort of right to entry. Issues around establishing identity do exist and resolving those takes different approaches. But having a passport -- even from the US and/or Canada -- is not always taken as proof of identity for all purposes in a foreign country. [This kind of situation gives rise to relative absurdities, including some situations of a foreign passport valid for entry not being accepted by itself as proof of identity in some other contexts of dealing with the very same host country government even as it is accepted as such by the same government in other contexts.] Having a passport, however, more often than not, facilitates matters more than it hinders matters. A sort of big exception to that is people with a claim to asylum/refugee status.

aktchi

That brings up an amusing personal memory. Many moons ago, long before FT and TSA etc., when I had my interview for the green card, the interviewer got chatty and said that in principle I could enter the USA by showing just the green card. Yup, no passport needed, just flash your green card. Made sense to me, and probably would have worked at the Canadian border, where any piece of paper was an acceptable document.

But no, I decide to try this on my return trip from India. So I am at ORD immigration line and hand over my green card to the immigration inspector. For those who don't know it is a plasticky thing like a credit card. The guy lifts the stamp in his hand and says in 1/2 joking 1/2 annoyed voice, "Where should I stamp your entry, on your shirt? Gimme your passport." So I did, but mentioned what that official in their office had told me. He just shook his head without saying anything. From then on, it has always been Passport and green card together.

GUWonder

... and if you had shown up without the permanent residency card (or some other non-passport documents) and just your passport, then you may well have been hit by a waiver fee of a few hundred dollars for not presenting the permanent residency card (or one of the other non-passport documents "required" of permanent residents at a US port of entry) even if you had a visa as well. But you would almost certainly still get in at a US POE without a passport unless your resident status was determined to be revoked or you were otherwise considered inadmissible.

aktchi

Yes I do realize that. After all, I was told so by none other than an INS official at the INS office in Chicago.

My point was, things look different in practice. The guy at POE wanted to see/stamp my passport because he is used to that. He asked for my passport. Unless one is an "activist" determined to make a point, very few would say, "I have it in my bag, but I won't show you!"

Yaatri

That argument would necessitate one to have a visa to every country to which the aircraft might be diverted. But no one does that and there is no requirement that you do that.
If an aircraft is diverted to an airport in another country and the passengers have to disembark so that they can be accommodated in a hotel overnight the passengers are usually given a transit visa.
I don't know whether the ICE would follow this commonsense procedure or detain the passengers.