Passports needed for INTERSTATE travel in '08!

[loriandmatt]

ok - stupid question.....

how long is a passport valid?

if i got one today how long would i be able to use it before i had to renew it? (pay for it again?)

 

[CleveRocks]

ok - stupid question.....

how long is a passport valid?

if i got one today how long would i be able to use it before i had to renew it? (pay for it again?)

At least when I last got one, US passports are valid for 10 years from date of issue.

 

[CleveRocks]

I don't know why you found it necessary to attack the poster. Just because you're not aware of a law doesn't mean it wasn't passed.

Hold on a minute! I was one of the people who was aware of the coming changes!

The fact that I don't think the threat to require passports as ID will come to pass doesn't mean an airline representative is spreading a rumor.

The OP posted that she was told (I added the emphasis) ...

in 2008 everyone would need a passport when traveling by air from STATE TO STATE! Can you believe that! We discussed the changes that have already been made at the Canadian borders and the new passport rules for cruises, but travel between the states? Come on! She said that in 2008 a new law would go into effect that would require a passport when traveling by air from state to state.

There were no "qualifiers" or "ifs" presented, it was presented as FACT. Since it is not fact as stated, I think that qualifies as a false rumor.

Secondly, I don't agree that I "attacked" the OP. I may have "attacked" what I believed to be her incorrect statement of facts, but I did not "attack" her by making comments about her as a person, just about her statements. Big difference. In the same way, I don't take your reply to my post as "attacking" me, I see it as a disagreement with what I said. If you were attacking me you would have disparaged my lack of intelligence and wit, my ugly clothes, and my ugly face, just like everyone who knows me in real life.

I haven't read anything regarding WS guests needing a passport. I assume that was just a rude comment that was intended to be funny.

I like humor. I may not be good at it, but I like it. Keeps me from taking myself too seriously.

 

[Lewisc]

Sorry attack may not have been the right word but you were lecturing the poster. You said the SW didn't have access to any secret information.

The fact is the TSA is threatening to require passports as government ID under existing laws.

I don't think there is any way this will come to be.

Your specific comment that I was objecting to:

A customer service representative of a discount airline does not have a super-secret pipeline into the inner-workings of the United States government.

No secret pipeline. Public comments, reported in the newspapers. The government, I think Homeland Security, is telling the states if they don't conform to the new standards for drivers licenses the residents of those states will need passports to go through airport security. I don't see anyway the federal government will be able to follow through with this threat.

http://www.ncsl.org/standcomm/sctran/realidsummary05.htm

Some of the states may decide it isn't worth complying with the law and leave it to the Federal Government to handle ID. Either passports or some new form of ID.

Hold on a minute! I was one of the people who was aware of the coming changes! The OP posted that she was told (I added the emphasis) ... There were no "qualifiers" or "ifs" presented, it was presented as FACT. Since it is not fact as stated, I think that qualifies as a false rumor.

Secondly, I don't agree that I "attacked" the OP. I may have "attacked" what I believed to be her incorrect statement of facts, but I did not "attack" her by making comments about her as a person, just about her statements. Big difference. In the same way, I don't take your reply to my post as "attacking" me, I see it as a disagreement with what I said. If you were attacking me you would have disparaged my lack of intelligence and wit, my ugly clothes, and my ugly face, just like everyone who knows me in real life. I like humor. I may not be good at it, but I like it. Keeps me from taking myself too seriously.

 

[NotUrsula]

All humorous aspects aside, the "right to travel" within the US has a been a hot topic in Constitutional Law for quite some time. It isn't explicitly spelled out in the US Constitution (though it was in the Articles of Confederation), but there are quite a number of court decisions that hold that it is an implied right protected by the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses in the 14th Amendment. Google "right to travel" -- it's quite interesting, though be wary of the extreme libertarian POV sites that make some specious claims about what is implied by compliance with driver licensing laws.

The economic difficulties of such a thing notwithstanding, it just won't happen because of the above-mentioned case law. The creation of a system of interstate passport control for US citizens is considered an aggregious breach of basic liberty. It isn't quite up there with Social Security in third-rail terms, but it is awfully close -- no legislator in his or her right mind would go on record as supporting it.

PS: You can certainly *use* your passport for ID, as it is the granddaddy of all governmentally issued ID's in this country, and pretty unassailable (except perhaps by bouncers at small-town bars, who tend to have never seen one before. ) Requiring passengers to have one in order to cross state lines is something else entirely, and it was that idea that I was addressing in my post.

 

[Lewisc]

This is probably why the federal government is "back dooring" a domestic passport by basically coercing the states into turning the drivers license into the equivalent of a domestic passport. The question is what happens when some states decide the requirements are overkill for state purposes and the federal government isn't paying enough of the cost. The issue would be if a drivers license by a non-complying state wouldn't be accepted as valid government issued ID. A passport would become, by default, the only acceptable form. A poster, may have been you, said the TSA can't require photo ID but was able to persuade some airlines into adopting that requirement.

The ongoing concern with terrorism and security has allowed for the government to warrantless wire taps that previously were thought to be illegal. My guess is economic issues would be the main reason why a national ID/ domestic passport won't fly.

All humorous aspects aside, the "right to travel" within the US has a been a hot topic in Constitutional Law for quite some time. It isn't explicitly spelled out in the US Constitution (though it was in the Articles of Confederation), but there are quite a number of court decisions that hold that it is an implied right protected by the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses in the 14th Amendment. Google "right to travel" -- it's quite interesting, though be wary of the extreme libertarian POV sites that make some specious claims about what is implied by compliance with driver licensing laws.

The economic difficulties of such a thing notwithstanding, it just won't happen because of the above-mentioned case law. The creation of a system of interstate passport control for US citizens is considered an aggregious breach of basic liberty. It isn't quite up there with Social Security in third-rail terms, but it is awfully close -- no legislator in his or her right mind would go on record as supporting it.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

The creation of a system of interstate passport control for US citizens is considered an aggregious breach of basic liberty. It isn't quite up there with Social Security in third-rail terms, but it is awfully close -- no legislator in his or her right mind would go on record as supporting it.

Interesting point.

The "right to travel" and the "right to board an airplane" are two different things (although there are some libertarians who would disagree with this statement). We can all travel state-to-state without having to show any ID for privilege of crossing a state line, regardless of our mode of travel. However, to board an airplane, we must present an acceptable government-issued ID, even if the flight begins and ends within a single state.

She said that in 2008 a new law would go into effect that would require a passport when traveling by air from state to state.

I agree with Eric (CleveRocks) that no such "new law" has been passed. The law applies to international travel outside across the U.S. border, not to travel between states. The Southwest Airlines employee is mistaken in making such an unconditional statement.

What about the possibility that the definition of an acceptable government-issued ID to board an airplane will change to mean passports only? It's possible, but I highly doubt that will happen. The Southwest Airlines employee stated it as a fact, not as a mere possibility if the TSA and state governments arrive at some sort of impasse. That employee is spreading misinformation.

 

[Lewisc]

The TSA does not require a photo ID. This came up in another thread. Go to the TSA website if you want to check it out. They request it and if you don't have photo ID you are subjected to secondary screening. Some people think the TSA coerced the airlines into requiring photo ID as away around possible legal restrictions that prevents the TSA from requiring it.

The new law (2005) says out existing drivers licenses won't be an acceptable form of ID in 2008 and the only existing form of ID that will qualify is a passport. This is the present law. That is a fact , unless something changes and it probably will change. . Residents of states that decline to issue licenses that meet the new requirements as well as residents that don't have time to get the new ID will find that a passport is the only form of ID that complies.

The SW employee is accurately stating a true fact, based on an existing law. There is almost no chance this situation will be allowed to exist. The states will come up with an acceptable ID card or the implementation will be delayed. A system that requires a passport to fly from NY to Orlando isn't a solution that will work. Right now it's a game of chicken. One state, I think NH, said they don't see the need to spend the money on the new licenses and the threat is NH residents will need passports to fly.

I posted a link that listed the steps the federal government is expecting the state to follow.

Interesting point.

The "right to travel" and the "right to board an airplane" are two different things (although there are some libertarians who would disagree with this statement). We can all travel state-to-state without having to show any ID for privilege of crossing a state line, regardless of our mode of travel. However, to board an airplane, we must present an acceptable government-issued ID, even if the flight begins and ends within a single state.


I agree with Eric (CleveRocks) that no such "new law" has been passed. The law applies to international travel outside across the U.S. border, not to travel between states. The Southwest Airlines employee is mistaken in making such an unconditional statement.

What about the possibility that the definition of an acceptable government-issued ID to board an airplane will change to mean passports only? It's possible, but I highly doubt that will happen. The Southwest Airlines employee stated it as a fact, not as a mere possibility if the TSA and state governments arrive at some sort of impasse. That employee is spreading misinformation.

 

[kaytieeldr]

ok - stupid question.....

how long is a passport valid?

if i got one today how long would i be able to use it before i had to renew it? (pay for it again)?

NOT a stupid question (don't worry someone will let you know if you ever do ask one ) Ten years for adults, five years under the age of eighteen (passport costs less, but not half the price ) BUT there's some type of 'cushion rule' in there that you can't use it under some conditions if it's going to expire within three or six months of your departure.

The TSA does not require a photo ID. This came up in another thread. Go to the TSA website if you want to check it out. They request it and if you don't have photo ID you are subjected to secondary screening. Some people think the TSA coerced the airlines into requiring photo ID as away around possible legal restrictions that prevents the TSA from requiring it.

Okay, now I'm totally Didn't the picture ID requirement come WAY before 2001?

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Okay, now I'm totally Didn't the picture ID requirement come WAY before 2001?

The airlines began to require picture IDs when electronic ticketing replaced the old paper tickets. Before September 11, 2001, most airlines allowed you present your ID and get your boarding pass at the ticket counter or at the gate counter. The purpose of the IDs was to match the traveler with the electronic ticket. (I couldn't just walk up and say "My name is Smith. Give me a boarding pass.) The ID didn't have anything to do with security; it was just a way to prevent fraud.

The airport security checkpoints did not require you to show your boarding pass and ID until after September 11. For a short time you had to show your ID a third time while boarding the aircraft. And the TSA wasn't created until 2002.

 

[NotUrsula]

Ten years for adults, five years under the age of eighteen (passport costs less, but not half the price). BUT there's some type of 'cushion rule' in there that you can't use it under some conditions if it's going to expire within three or six months of your departure.

The catch is that juvenile passports cannot be renewed; you have to pay the entire application and execution fee and do the entire process again. Adult passports can be renewed, and the renewal fee is lower than the fee for an initial application. Therefore kids cost you more in the long run, but don't they always?

Current fees are:
Age 16 and older: The passport application fee is $67. The execution fee is $30. The total is $97. There is no execution fee for renewals.

Under Age 16: The passport application fee is $52. The execution fee is $30. The total is $82.

The "cushion rule" isn't imposed by the US government, but by the governments of the countries you might be visiting, so it varies depending on where you are going. The reason for it is to ensure that your passport remains valid while you are there, even if your departure is delayed.

I think that having a valid passport is always a good idea, for all kinds of reasons. In fact, I think it is so important that I have two! (I'm a dual citizen, actually.)

 

[manning]

I was on the phone with a customer service manager from SWA today. Through our conversation we somehow got on the subject of government issued passports. She told me that they had received information that the price of a passport was going from $60 to $120 beginning in Jan. 07 and that in 2008 everyone would need a passport when traveling by air from STATE TO STATE! Can you believe that! We discussed the changes that have already been made at the Canadian borders and the new passport rules for cruises, but travel between the states? Come on! She said that in 2008 a new law would go into effect that would require a passport when traveling by air from state to state. I can't believe it. My husband and I already have passports, but I think I will get my children one before the price goes up.

Must be an ex-Disney CM.

 

[kbeverina]

Inter-state travel can refer to travel between nation states--I'm wondering if that's what the person read and misunderstood it to mean travel between U.S. states.

 

[BeccaG]

Inter-state travel can refer to travel between nation states--I'm wondering if that's what the person read and misunderstood it to mean travel between U.S. states.

You are probably right because I would guess requiring a pasport for interstate travel would be challenged Constituionally (I say that as a government teacher not a lawyer!!). The Federal government is not allowed to make distinctions between the states. Especially since we in the USA use the word "state" wrong, I think your guess kbeverina is on the right paty!

 

[MAGICX2]

The TSA does not require a photo ID. This came up in another thread. Go to the TSA website if you want to check it out. They request it and if you don't have photo ID you are subjected to secondary screening. Some people think the TSA coerced the airlines into requiring photo ID as away around possible legal restrictions that prevents the TSA from requiring it.

The new law (2005) says out existing drivers licenses won't be an acceptable form of ID in 2008 and the only existing form of ID that will qualify is a passport. This is the present law. That is a fact , unless something changes and it probably will change. . Residents of states that decline to issue licenses that meet the new requirements as well as residents that don't have time to get the new ID will find that a passport is the only form of ID that complies.

The SW employee is accurately stating a true fact, based on an existing law. There is almost no chance this situation will be allowed to exist. The states will come up with an acceptable ID card or the implementation will be delayed. A system that requires a passport to fly from NY to Orlando isn't a solution that will work. Right now it's a game of chicken. One state, I think NH, said they don't see the need to spend the money on the new licenses and the threat is NH residents will need passports to fly.

I posted a link that listed the steps the federal government is expecting the state to follow.

I really, truely did not mean to get people in an uproar over this! I couldn't believe this information I was given. I don't recall that I ever stated that I believed it as fact. The CM at SWA obviously did. I believe I even said "Can you believe it? and Come On!" in my original post to imply that I was skeptical.
I appreciate the post by LewisC. This is most likely the situation and the CM just read into wrong. But, like LewisC stated, unless the states come up with an acceptable ID card, then a passport will be the only form of ID to qualify for travel anywhere, including state to state.

 

[CPT Tripss]

It needs to be stated again. TSA does not require photo ID. The TSA will just subject you to secondary security screening.

The airline won't require photo ID if you have some other form of acceptable ID, use the kiosk or if you get your boarding pass on line.

 

[Lewisc]

It needs to be stated again. TSA does not require photo ID. The TSA will just subject you to secondary security screening.

The airline won't require photo ID if you have some other form of acceptable ID, use the kiosk or if you get your boarding pass on line.

Although that statement is technically correct if the airline requires photo ID the TSA representative could send you back to the airline. The fact that you can bypass having the airline examine your photo ID, by getting your BP on line and not checking luggage, doesn't change a possible airline requirement requiring photo ID.

Anyone who doesn't have photo ID should allow plenty of extra time.

 

[kylara]

The current price for a passport is $97 + the cost of pictures and some people may also have to pay to get a copy of their birth certificates.

Passports make sense for people who think they may need one. A passport may cost almost as much as airfare to MCO. I don't think it's worth paying for one just in case you win a contest.

I just got my passport. For a new passport you need a copy of your birth certificate and if you married and took a new last name, you need a copy of the marriage certificate.

If you legally changed your name, you would need a copy of that paperwork.

 

[Hawk]