NSA spied on EU

[K. A. Pital]

Wait, not paying child support can lead to revocation of passport? Come on guys, how sad can you make me in one week?

Do remember Stas, that the US is as large as Europe, and from one end to the other is 8 thousand kilometers.

I remember that the USSR was also enormously big, but the criticism that leaving it was hard, and especially for offenders it was like, impossible, was always a valid one.

[phongn]

Wait, not paying child support can lead to revocation of passport? Come on guys, how sad can you make me in one week?

It's not automatic, but it's a way to prevent parents from fleeing the country to avoid payments. The US legally considers a passport to be a privilege, not a right, and reserved the right to deny or revoke at its discretion.

[Thanas]

But isn't the right to move freely a universal human right?

[Broomstick]

As I mentioned upthread, the US is happy to let you leave*, the passport is for getting back in. You're right to move around inside the country isn't impaired, and you're right to leave isn't impaired, it's getting into the US that would be problematic.

Actually, with a little thought I'm sure any of us could come up with ways to sneak into the US, but I don't really want to engage in that sort of speculation here. However, the shear length of the border and how open it is on a physical level does give some elements in the US shitfits.


* Unless, of course, you're the object of a massive manhunt. I'm talking about the average citizen the government doesn't give a damn about.

[Thanas]

As I mentioned upthread, the US is happy to let you leave*, the passport is for getting back in. You're right to move around inside the country isn't impaired, and you're right to leave isn't impaired, it's getting into the US that would be problematic.

But the right of free movement is nonexistent because without a passport you won't get into any other country either. So this doesn't get the USA of the hook there.

[Flagg]

As I mentioned upthread, the US is happy to let you leave*, the passport is for getting back in. You're right to move around inside the country isn't impaired, and you're right to leave isn't impaired, it's getting into the US that would be problematic.

But the right of free movement is nonexistent because without a passport you won't get into any other country either. So this doesn't get the USA of the hook there.

Since its just people who are accused of crimes and are flight risks, what's the problem? Do other countries not do this?

[His Divine Shadow]

As I mentioned upthread, the US is happy to let you leave*, the passport is for getting back in. You're right to move around inside the country isn't impaired, and you're right to leave isn't impaired, it's getting into the US that would be problematic.

But the right of free movement is nonexistent because without a passport you won't get into any other country either. So this doesn't get the USA of the hook there.

Since its just people who are accused of crimes and are flight risks, what's the problem? Do other countries not do this?

That was the way I thought every country operated.

[Flagg]

But the right of free movement is nonexistent because without a passport you won't get into any other country either. So this doesn't get the USA of the hook there.

Since its just people who are accused of crimes and are flight risks, what's the problem? Do other countries not do this?

That was the way I thought every country operated.

Just AmeriKKKa apparently. I'm getting sick of the idiotic hyperbole.

[Flagg]

I mean seriously, should every American criminal be regarded as a fucking hero because Obama is the third Anti-Christ or something?

[Ralin]

But the right of free movement is nonexistent because without a passport you won't get into any other country either. So this doesn't get the USA of the hook there.

The obvious answer would be to take it up with those other countries.

[Flagg]

The other thing I'm finding maddeningly hilarious is that people who think it's ok to put a camera on every street corner are apoplectic about the government knowing less about you than Facebook.

[RogueIce]

As I mentioned upthread, the US is happy to let you leave*, the passport is for getting back in. You're right to move around inside the country isn't impaired, and you're right to leave isn't impaired, it's getting into the US that would be problematic.

But the right of free movement is nonexistent because without a passport you won't get into any other country either. So this doesn't get the USA of the hook there.

It's not an absolute right, like everything else there are limits.

Article 12

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

(Italics mine)

So y'know, nations can in fact restrict people's movements in accordance with their laws. I'd think that would be obvious or else pretty much everyone accused of a crime who knew they were pretty much guilty would just start hopping planes to non-extradition countries.

[Simon_Jester]

It's not like there's a right to have a passport or leave one's country...

Are you sure? I mean, that sounds really crazy. Leaving one's nation is a very fundamental right, is it not?

Well I meant according to the US constitution.

Anyway, not saying it isn't fucked up. But not compared to other US policies on the subject.

I don't think there's a right to leave one's country that overrides the government's need to be able to pursue a fugitive wanted for a crime. Or someone with legal financial obligations that make them a flight risk (i.e. a history of not paying child support).

Otherwise, it becomes impossible to enforce laws with any kind of consistency, because you can so easily escape justice by sneaking out across the border.

No, the right of abode is the right to live in a country, and to enter it, without having to deal with immigration control. It's the opposite of the right to move around; it's the right to stay put.

Ah, ok, translation error.
It´s the right to freedom of movement.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Do European countries not have the practice of revoking the passports of wanted felons, or people standing trial for a crime? Because that sounds extremely easy to exploit.

Everybody I know in Germany gets a passport. Maybe it makes more sense for Europe considering the travel and before Schengen some people regularly had to cross borders just to get to work (for example if you live near Trier chances are you will cross into Luxembourg or vice versa).

The average American can't afford the cost to travel abroad, so why would they get a passport? The cheapest roundtrip ticket from NYC to London is $2500, for example. Most Americans don't have that kind of change lying about.

I just found a round trip from NYC to London on American airlines for under $2000 in a few minutes of Google searching, and it looks like a third of that is premium costs for arbitrarily deciding that I'd pick a flight coming back on a Friday a week from now. Schedule in advance and it's looking more like $1500 or less- but good luck getting down into the roughly $1000 range that Thanas is citing. I'm guessing the tickets are more expensive on this side of the Atlantic.

Now, $1500 is affordable to the median American household in the sense of "could spend this money if we really wanted to." But it's an awfully expensive way to take a trip.

Then again, even hopping in a car and driving to the nearest border can easily cost $200 or $300 between gas and accommodations. And that's a one-way trip.

You cannot leave your nation, so your nation becomes a giant prison, doesn't it?

You're catching on. The vast majority of Americans don't have the money to leave their state, let alone go to another country. And even if they managed to scrape together the money, they're held in place by their now precious-beyond-measure jobs (from which most can be fired at will.) The Constitution makes infringing on ones right to move illegal, but it says nothing about making ones workforce poor and desperate enough to make moving well neigh impossible and inconceivable.

This is an exaggeration; you speak as if the typical American experience is to be a serf. Americans working even relatively low-income jobs move from one state to another on a semi-regular basis, and the typical suburban American experience involves moving multiple times in their life. A LOT of Americans live in the suburbs.

Do people casually move across the country, knowing they have no support network and no specific job prospects when they arrive? No, but that strikes me as irresponsible jet-setting, not a "right" which people are being "denied."

And oh yeah, if you get on the bad side of the powers that be, or even merely someone well connected enough, you lose your voting rights, essentially get blacklisted from ever having anything that could be confused for gainful employment, get registered as a felon, and get treated like scum by people that think you should be raped to death in general population.

'Merica. Land of the free.

How well connected does someone have to be, to get you convicted of a felony you didn't do? Can you quantify that, or at least provide examples?

Wait, not paying child support can lead to revocation of passport? Come on guys, how sad can you make me in one week?

Someone who persistently refuses to pay child support is a flight risk.

The valid criticism here is that the American system is so dependent on extracting child support payments from absentee fathers (and mothers sometimes) that we need to keep them in the country to make the payments. It would be more sensible to change the system so that this is no longer such a problem, although I do think it's worthwhile to have some means of holding people (mostly males) accountable for having a host of children and refusing to take responsibility for supporting them.

Do remember Stas, that the US is as large as Europe, and from one end to the other is 8 thousand kilometers.

I remember that the USSR was also enormously big, but the criticism that leaving it was hard, and especially for offenders it was like, impossible, was always a valid one.

This became relevant when coupled to another criticism, which was that it was very easy to become an "offender."

For example, in the US you generally don't get committed to a mental hospital for thinking the government is incompetent; you get committed to a mental hospital because you are mentally ill. Hell, we have enough trouble finding beds in the mental hospitals for the people who are seriously ill as it is! There is no room for dissidents.

So if the state denies someone with untreated schizophrenia a passport, it will overwhelmingly be because that is a risk to their well-being and safety: imagine for a moment the plight of a seriously mentally ill person stranded in a foreign country!

In the USSR it was relatively common for dissidents to be labeled as mentally ill and treated accordingly- which makes it much more questionable to then deny the "mentally ill" person the full rights of a legally competent adult.

The real problem in a system like the US's is thus not that passports are denied to fugitives, people who committed a felony, falsified information on their application, the mentally ill, and those who owe the state large sums of money. It is that it is too easy to be placed on the list of such people- in which case that is where you should focus your discontent.

But isn't the right to move freely a universal human right?

If so, then how do you justify the existence of prisons? And I'm not just talking American prisons here, I mean any prisons.

[Zaune]

Do European countries not have the practice of revoking the passports of wanted felons, or people standing trial for a crime? Because that sounds extremely easy to exploit.

I'm not honestly certain, but within the mainland EU it'd be a bit pointless because we don't do much in the way of border checks, and there's also the European Arrest Warrant.

[Thanas]

Another revelation - apparently Sweden gave itself the right to warrantlessly wiretap all communications crossing its border. Wiki link here

[Simon_Jester]

Do European countries not have the practice of revoking the passports of wanted felons, or people standing trial for a crime? Because that sounds extremely easy to exploit.

I'm not honestly certain, but within the mainland EU it'd be a bit pointless because we don't do much in the way of border checks, and there's also the European Arrest Warrant.

If so, that reflects on European practices, and shouldn't be considered a guideline for other free countries in the world that don't have a standardized continental arrest warrant and do maintain serious border controls that require you to regularly present your passports.

There's nothing wrong with European countries agreeing to bypass the problem of detaining fugitives who try to flee across international borders, and using the EAW as a shortcut version of conventional extradition procedures. But the rest of the world hasn't done that, and probably won't do it any time soon.

[Broomstick]

Do European countries not have the practice of revoking the passports of wanted felons, or people standing trial for a crime? Because that sounds extremely easy to exploit.

I'm not honestly certain, but within the mainland EU it'd be a bit pointless because we don't do much in the way of border checks, and there's also the European Arrest Warrant.

All relatively recent innovations if I understand correctly - certainly, when I traveled to Europe you needed a passport to cross any national border. Indeed, that was the reason I ever had a passport, to make that trip, and while it was several decades ago my recollection was that the borders were serious affairs and everyone had to show documents to cross one.

When did the EAW come into play? I know Interpol has been around awhile but I'm not conversant with the details of the justice system(s) over there.

[Broomstick]

Another revelation - apparently Sweden gave itself the right to warrantlessly wiretap all communications crossing its border. Wiki link here

That was three days from the last revelation, wasn't it? As I said - not long, and everyone. I expect we'll be hearing about more governmental spying as time goes by.

[Simon_Jester]

When did the EAW come into play? I know Interpol has been around awhile but I'm not conversant with the details of the justice system(s) over there.

I would guess it postdates the invention of continent-wide computer networks that allow law enforcement to easily access the warrant from anywhere in Europe. It's a really good idea, I'm glad they do it.

And as I said, I don't think it's a substitute for the overall world issue of handling fugitive criminals.

[K. A. Pital]

I was more concerned about the fact that you do not get your passport back after serving your sentence. In other nations, as far as I know, you get it back upon release.

[Justice]

Huh. From what I understood, the biggest restrictions on getting your US passport back as a former felon/convict was largely either debt-related or if your crime involved you travelling out of country (Such as drug trafficking). I'm sure they can deny them for other reasons, but as I knew it these were the biggest ones.

I also thought certain countries have restrictions on whether felons can enter or not; I seem to remember Canada having (or had) a 5-year waiting period after your felony conviction.

[salm]

Do European countries not have the practice of revoking the passports of wanted felons, or people standing trial for a crime? Because that sounds extremely easy to exploit.

Yeah, but as far as I know they get it back after their time is done. At least in Germany. I don´t know about other countries.

I just found a round trip from NYC to London on American airlines for under $2000 in a few minutes of Google searching, and it looks like a third of that is premium costs for arbitrarily deciding that I'd pick a flight coming back on a Friday a week from now. Schedule in advance and it's looking more like $1500 or less- but good luck getting down into the roughly $1000 range that Thanas is citing. I'm guessing the tickets are more expensive on this side of the Atlantic.

Now, $1500 is affordable to the median American household in the sense of "could spend this money if we really wanted to." But it's an awfully expensive way to take a trip.

Then again, even hopping in a car and driving to the nearest border can easily cost $200 or $300 between gas and accommodations. And that's a one-way trip.

I just spent 1 minute searching and found flights from nyc to berlin and back again for 850$ on a site that seems to be an American site. And for 50$ more you can even fly nonstop.
http://www.kayak.com/flights/NYC-BER/20 ... 2013-09-25
Are you looking for flights in business class or something?

[Metahive]

There are news that the NSA and BND might have been in cahoots on the spying issue. Good, more reason to hate and despise Merkel. She's not only doing nothing about a foreign nation spying on citizens under her care, she's helping them along.

[Broomstick]

I was more concerned about the fact that you do not get your passport back after serving your sentence. In other nations, as far as I know, you get it back upon release.

Um... I've known a number of former felons who were able to get passports. I didn't ask them for details, but clearly it's not a blanket ban on the US side (whether or not a particular country will allow a former felon inside its borders is another matter than will certainly vary by nation).

Pre-conviction the revocation of passport is to impair attempts to flee. Post-conviction it may or may not be part of your punishment.

[His Divine Shadow]

I was more concerned about the fact that you do not get your passport back after serving your sentence. In other nations, as far as I know, you get it back upon release.

Where does it say that? I tried looking through the thread but could not find it.