Re: Tunnels connecting countries.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 20/02/2012 21:23, Nobody wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:34:20 -0800 (PST), amogles<amo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 18 Feb., 00:36, "hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk"<hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> On 17/02/2012 09:38, amogles wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17 Feb., 02:32, "hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk"<hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> An Interurban train used in Brownsville, Texas, used to cross the border
>>>>> into Mexico until 1971.
>>>
>>>> Good point. There was also a tram line (using PCC cars) that crossed
>>>> from El Paso to Ciudad Juarez.
>>>
>>> What were those Interurbans called and where might it be possible to see
>>> some information about them?
>>
>> I'm sorry I can't help with historical details. I think there is a
>> book that should be available on Amazon about teh streetcars of El
>> paso and I guess this would also discuss the cross-border lines.
>>
>> Here is a nice picture of a PCC crossing the border
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/ElpasoCL.jpg/580px-ElpasoCL.jpg
>>
>>>
>>>> That one would be unthinklable these days.
>>>
>>> Why, because of the current strife with the drug cartels along the
>>> US-Mexico border?
>>
>> I guess more because of the immigration situation and tightening of
>> security which would probably make such a cross-border tram
>> unsustainable.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> When was the last time that it was possible to take a train from the US
>>> into Mexico?
>>
>> There still are freight trains of course. Parts of the Mexican rail
>> system are even owned by US railroads (especially the KCS).
>>
>> With the exception of the various metros and light rail systems, and a
>> handful of tourist lines, passenger rail operation in Mexico ceased in
>> 1997. Officially it was only suspended so it may yet be revived but I
>> guess this is highly unlikely.
>>
>> There was a time that you could get off Amtrak at El Paso and walk
>> across the border into Ciudad Jauarez and catch a Mexican train there.
>> That was the closest you could get to an intenational train journey in
>> that area. Actual passenger through trains have been discontinued for
>> quite a bit longer as far as I am aware. Possibly in the early 1960s.
>> I'm not even sure what routes were operated and which crossings were
>> used.
>
> Paul Theroux's "The Old Patagonian Express" from 1979 makes a good
> read for travel through Mexico.

My thoughts exactly. I can't remember, however, if he crossed into
Mexico via foot at Laredo or if there was a passenger train that crossed
over.

Any prospects for passenger service into Mexico from the United States?

[Clark F Morris]

The Aztec Eagle had a through sleeping car from at least San Antonio
to Mexico City in 1965. I rode it.

Clark Morris

[Merritt Mullen]

> >>> When was the last time that it was possible to take a train from the US
> >>> into Mexico?

> Any prospects for passenger service into Mexico from the United States?

I don't believe they operate it any more, but the Pacific Southwest
Railway Museum used to run a tourist train between Campo, California,
and Tecate, Mexico, through the International Border Tunnel. With no
lighting in the coaches, it was very dark in that tunnel. Everyone got
a tour of the Tecate Brewery on the Mexican end. I rode it a number of
years ago (about 1985?). Upon return to Campo, all passengers remained
aboard until INS agents inspected the underside of the train for any
stowaways. Upon un-boarding, INS inspectors did a cursory check of each
passenger.

At one time this was the San Diego and Arizona Railway between El Centro
and San Diego CA and the train crossed the border at least twice during
its trip. The line has been reopened as the Carizzo Gorge Railway and
provides freight service between El Centro and San Diego, serving places
in Mexico as well. For a map and a nice video, see

http://www.carrizogorgerailway.com/

Merritt

[amogles]

On 21 Feb., 00:30, "hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk" <hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>
> Any prospects for passenger service into Mexico from the United States?

Yes. It something that Amtrak makes arm-waving gestures about in their
long-term objectives.

But under the current climate I guess Amtrak is happy if they can
secure the funds to keep their present services moving, so don't
expect anything soon.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

I myself thought that it might be more along the lines of wishful thinking.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

Reminds me of VIA Rail Canada's Atlantic train, which ran from Montreal
to Halifax via Maine. INS agents would get on board and make sure that
the train's outer doors were completely sealed, so that nobody could
jump off.

[amogles]

On 22 Feb., 22:36, "hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk" <hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>
> > But under the current climate I guess Amtrak is happy if they can
> > secure the funds to keep their present services moving, so don't
> > expect anything soon.
>
> I myself thought that it might be more along the lines of wishful thinking.

It definitely is.

But there are projects for reinstating passenger rail services all
over the USA. Some of these are obviously pie in the sky but some look
as though they make sense and things may happen if and when finance
becomes more forthcoming. Look at the state-sponsored corridor
services in California or North Carolina for example (or even the
Oklahoma City to Fort Worth service). It would be conceivable that
such a service may one day cross the border from California into
Mexico. With the large number of Mexicans working in the USA there is
bound to be a huge demand for travel so they can go home and visit
their families (just as in the 1960s there were numerous direct trains
between Italy and Germany catering specifically for the guest worker
market).

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

What about plans to extend the San Diego Trolley into Tijuana? I have
heard about that and I am guessing that it would be the most realistic
at this time.

[Jimmy]

"hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk" <hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> What about plans to extend the San Diego Trolley into Tijuana? I have
> heard about that and I am guessing that it would be the most realistic
> at this time.

I'd be really surprised if that ever happened.

Border delays are a big problem for scheduled transit service entering
the U.S. Even at Canadian crossings where delays for cars are rare,
Greyhound has to schedule an hour for the inspection, and sometimes it
takes longer than that. Amtrak discontinued the International from
Chicago to Toronto because of border delays.

It would only be worse for a short-distance urban transit line.

There's also the problems involved in building the fixed rail
infrastructure under another country's bureaucracy.

Jimmy

[spsffan]

Indeed. There are already many cheap buses that connect the SD Trolley
with Tijuana. They drive straight into Mexico (or they used to back
before 9/11/2001) and are actually quite worthwhile if you don't want to
walk to the tourist area in TJ.

But coming back to the USA, the buses get stuck in the same traffic jam
as the rest of the road traffic (which might be bypassed with a
trolley), and then, everyone must get off and walk through customs and
immigration. The exit from the customs building is literally steps from
the existing trolley stop.

My last few trips (admittedly, about 8 or 9 years ago), we walked from
the trolley to the tourist area on Avenue de la Revolution and even to
the modern indoor shopping mall. Not so bad unless you have heavy
packages to carry.

Regards,

DAve

[Nobody]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:31:37 -0800 (PST), Jimmy
<JimmyG...@mailinator.com> wrote:

>"hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk" <hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> What about plans to extend the San Diego Trolley into Tijuana? I have
>> heard about that and I am guessing that it would be the most realistic
>> at this time.
>
>I'd be really surprised if that ever happened.
>
>Border delays are a big problem for scheduled transit service entering
>the U.S. Even at Canadian crossings where delays for cars are rare,

Huh? You obviously haven't crossed between BC's Lower Mainland and
Washington state recently!

60 to 70 minutes in line are routine at Peace Arch/freeway and the
"truck crossing"/176th Street to Blaine. Even Aldergrove to Lynden
(264th Street) took me 40 minutes a couple of Saturday mornings ago.

It's been this way basically in the wake of 9/11.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Nobody <jo...@soccer.com> wrote:
>Jimmy <JimmyG...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>"hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk" <hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>>What about plans to extend the San Diego Trolley into Tijuana? I have
>>>heard about that and I am guessing that it would be the most realistic
>>>at this time.

>>I'd be really surprised if that ever happened.

>>Border delays are a big problem for scheduled transit service entering
>>the U.S. Even at Canadian crossings where delays for cars are rare,

>Huh? You obviously haven't crossed between BC's Lower Mainland and
>Washington state recently!

>60 to 70 minutes in line are routine at Peace Arch/freeway and the
>"truck crossing"/176th Street to Blaine. Even Aldergrove to Lynden
>(264th Street) took me 40 minutes a couple of Saturday mornings ago.

>It's been this way basically in the wake of 9/11.

Do you cross with a passport, or do you use one of the Canadian-issued
trusted traveler cards?

[Nobody]

Passport. The actual time to pass through the check for me is
probably less than 20 secs.

I have more hassles coming back into Canada because the agents seem to
find it stange that I don't go shopping below the line!

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ah. So they make you wait in the long line with all the peasants.

[Glen Labah]

In article <Wby1r.465079$tF3.3...@newsfe16.ams2>,

"houn...@yahoo.co.uk" <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> What about plans to extend the San Diego Trolley into Tijuana? I have
> heard about that and I am guessing that it would be the most realistic
> at this time.

Every year, the INS people dig up 3-5 tunnels under the border, complete
with mine railway equipment, used for smuggling drugs across the border.
Many of these originate from warehouses near the Tijuana airport as the
airport helps hide the vibrations happening below the surface. Maybe if
they legalize the marijuana trade a legitimate railway for this purpose
would be built, but it's really hard to imagine there being enough
legitimate cross-border passenger demand that are not already being met
by current modes.

Mexico's biggest commercial centers are very far to the south of the
US-Mexico border, and the railway lines to get to them really aren't in
useful passenger condition. It isn't like Canada, where some of the
largest cities in the country are just slightly north of the border.

It's hard to imagine legitimate intercity passenger service not becoming
a really nasty political football.

--
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address
harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.

[Nobody]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:59:14 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>Nobody <jo...@soccer.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:18:33 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>><a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Nobody <jo...@soccer.com> wrote:
>>>>Jimmy <JimmyG...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>>>>"hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk" <hounsl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>What about plans to extend the San Diego Trolley into Tijuana? I have
>>>>>>heard about that and I am guessing that it would be the most realistic
>>>>>>at this time.
>>>
>>>>>I'd be really surprised if that ever happened.
>>>
>>>>>Border delays are a big problem for scheduled transit service entering
>>>>>the U.S. Even at Canadian crossings where delays for cars are rare,
>>>
>>>>Huh? You obviously haven't crossed between BC's Lower Mainland and
>>>>Washington state recently!
>>>
>>>>60 to 70 minutes in line are routine at Peace Arch/freeway and the
>>>>"truck crossing"/176th Street to Blaine. Even Aldergrove to Lynden
>>>>(264th Street) took me 40 minutes a couple of Saturday mornings ago.
>>>
>>>>It's been this way basically in the wake of 9/11.
>>>
>>>Do you cross with a passport, or do you use one of the Canadian-issued
>>>trusted traveler cards?
>>
>>Passport. The actual time to pass through the check for me is
>>probably less than 20 secs.
>
>Ah. So they make you wait in the long line with all the peasants.

< guffaw>

No, just another victim of inane knee-jerk bureaucracy.

[srfu...@googlemail.com]

On Feb 24, 8:12 pm, Nobody <j...@soccer.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:31:37 -0800 (PST), Jimmy
>

> >Jimmy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is there passenger rail service between somewhere in the 48 states and
Alaska? If so, what's the position for a US citizen passing through
Canada to get there?

[Bruce]

srfu...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>Is there passenger rail service between somewhere in the 48 states and
>Alaska? If so, what's the position for a US citizen passing through
>Canada to get there?

I don't know of any passenger rail service between the lower 48 and
Alaska. Amtrak's "Cascades" service serves Vancouver but that's as
far as it goes.

However, the White Pass and Yukon tourist railroad starts at Skagway,
Alaska and crosses the border into Canada about 20 miles into its
journey towards Carcross.

A high proportion of the passengers using this railroad are
passengers from cruise ships that dock at Skagway. I'm not sure
whether any customs/immigration procedures take place on all the trips
but the company web site mentions that passports are required on at
least some of them:

http://www.wpyr.com/schedule.html

[Merritt Mullen]

In article
<ceee41fb-86c1-4fbe...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

srfu...@googlemail.com wrote:

> Is there passenger rail service between somewhere in the 48 states and
> Alaska? If so, what's the position for a US citizen passing through
> Canada to get there?

There is no passenger (or freight) rail service between the "lower 48"
and Alaska. A good reason for that is that a railroad has never been
built between the two.

You can drive, fly, or take a ship. Driving is difficult and only
practical certain parts of the year. There are passenger ferries that
will take you to the southeastern arm of Alaska. Most people fly.

If you do choose to drive through Canada, there are no difficulties for
U. S. citizens. Recently, a passport has become required, however.

Merritt

[Roger Traviss]

> There is no passenger (or freight) rail service between the "lower 48"
> and Alaska. A good reason for that is that a railroad has never been
> built between the two.

During the 1960s and 1970s, Pacific Great Eastern the later BC Rail started
to build an extension of their line towards Dease Lake but construction was
halted. Grading was completed all the way, and can still be seen from the
air. 58.3'N 129.4'W. The eventual goal was Alaska.

> You can drive, fly, or take a ship. Driving is difficult and only
> practical certain parts of the year. There are passenger ferries that
> will take you to the southeastern arm of Alaska. Most people fly.

The Alaska Highway is paved all the way and is kept open year round. It was
started from Alaska by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers into Canada after
the Americans were forced into W.W.. Initially without the Canadian
government's knowledge, although the route had been approved pre-war. The
construction came to the Canadian government's notice after local natives
started enquiring why they were not being offered work on the "new highway".

The train ferry from Prince Rupert to Alaska runs year round as does the
passenger ferry from Seattle(?).

> If you do choose to drive through Canada, there are no difficulties for
> U. S. citizens. Recently, a passport has become required, however.

True. The "World's longest undefended border" is no longer a fact.


--
Cheers.

Roger Traviss


Photos of the late HO scale GER: -

http://www.greateasternrailway.com

For more photos not in the above album and kitbashes etc..:-
http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l99/rogertra/Great_Eastern/

[Adam H. Kerman]

Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:

>If you do choose to drive through Canada, there are no difficulties for
>U. S. citizens. Recently, a passport has become required, however.

I know passports are required to enter or re-enter the United States.
Does Canada require Americas entering Canada to carry a passport?

[John Levine]

>I know passports are required to enter or re-enter the United States.
>Does Canada require Americas entering Canada to carry a passport?

They require that you have sufficient documentation to get back into
the U.S. If you're going by air, you need a passport. If by land or
water, some other documents such as an enhanced drivers license (not
available in Illinois) will do.

Read all about it here:

http://www.getyouhome.gov/html/eng_map.html

--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 09-Mar-12 21:57, Merritt Mullen wrote:
> If you do choose to drive through Canada [to Alaska], there are no

> difficulties for U. S. citizens. Recently, a passport has become
> required, however.

That would be a "difficulty" for the ~77% of US citizens who do not
_have_ a passport.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 09-Mar-12 22:33, Roger Traviss wrote:
>> If you do choose to drive through Canada, there are no difficulties for
>> U. S. citizens. Recently, a passport has become required, however.
>
> True. The "World's longest undefended border" is no longer a fact.

"Defended" implies military defense, and AFAIK none are used along the
US-Canada border on either side. Civilian law enforcement has always
been there.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jjeqq2$df0$1...@dont-email.me>, at 00:02:42 on Sat, 10 Mar
2012, Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> remarked:

>> If you do choose to drive through Canada [to Alaska], there are no
>> difficulties for U. S. citizens. Recently, a passport has become
>> required, however.
>
>That would be a "difficulty" for the ~77% of US citizens who do not
>_have_ a passport.

Which is presumably why there's now the passport card.

http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppt_card/ppt_card_3921.html
--
Roland Perry

[James Robinson]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> Merritt Mullen wrote:
>
>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> remarked:
>>
>>> If you do choose to drive through Canada [to Alaska], there are no
>>> difficulties for U. S. citizens. Recently, a passport has become
>>> required, however.
>>
>> That would be a "difficulty" for the ~77% of US citizens who do not
>> _have_ a passport.
>
> Which is presumably why there's now the passport card.
>
> http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppt_card/ppt_card_3921.html

... or the enhanced drivers' license, which is available in four border
states.

[Arthur Figgis]

On 10/03/2012 06:02, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 09-Mar-12 21:57, Merritt Mullen wrote:
>> If you do choose to drive through Canada [to Alaska], there are no
>> difficulties for U. S. citizens. Recently, a passport has become
>> required, however.
>
> That would be a "difficulty" for the ~77% of US citizens who do not
> _have_ a passport.

While people criticise the USians for that, how many British people
would have a passport if you could travel everywhere from London to
Ekaterinburg[1] without one?

[1] A slightly shorter distance than New York - Los Angeles.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

[Adam H. Kerman]

uk.railway cut from crosspost

Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>On 09-Mar-12 22:33, Roger Traviss wrote:

>>>If you do choose to drive through Canada, there are no difficulties for
>>>U. S. citizens. Recently, a passport has become required, however.

>>True. The "World's longest undefended border" is no longer a fact.

>"Defended" implies military defense, and AFAIK none are used along the
>US-Canada border on either side. Civilian law enforcement has always
>been there.

I looked it up. I wouldn't say "always", and it certainly didn't start with
the Canadian border.

Texas Rangers had duties similar to Border Patrol, in the 1880's.

The origins of federal border patrol go back to a handful of mounted
guards, based in El Paso, starting in 1904, part of the Immigration
Service, a few of whom patrolled California to stop illegal Chinese
immigration. Chinese had been excluded starting in 1885. In 1915, Congress
appropriated fund for another unit to pursue Chinese. It's not clear if
the 1904 guards were law enforcement officers from the Wikipedia article,
but the second group were.

The modern Border Patrol was authorized in 1924, part of the Immigration
Bureau in the Department of Labor. It began with stations in both El
Paso and Detroit, apparently no longer concerned with illegal Chinese
immigration. Checking Customs and Border Patrol Web site, the Detroit
station was more important, to enforce laws against illegal importation
of liquor.

Immigration itself was in Treasury, initially, in 1891, transferred to
the new Commerce and Labor in 1903, and to the new Labor department
in 1913. At that time, Immigration and Naturalization functions were
split into separate bureaus, then re-assembled in 1933, becoming
Immigration and Naturalization Service. INS was transferred to Justice
in 1940. Post 9/11, immigration and naturalization were separated again.

However, since the end of Prohibition, the Canadian border was
de-emphasize for many decades. The recent emphasis on the Canadian border
is mainly security theater.

There's no threat, unless they start smuggling hooch in again.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>On 09-Mar-12 21:57, Merritt Mullen wrote:

>>If you do choose to drive through Canada [to Alaska], there are no
>>difficulties for U. S. citizens. Recently, a passport has become
>>required, however.

>That would be a "difficulty" for the ~77% of US citizens who do not
>_have_ a passport.

You don't believe that the number is significantly higher for Americans
who live in border states like Alaska and Washington? There's also
NEXUS and SENTRI, administered by Canada, and passport cards.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Are the documentation requirements to travel to and from Ireland
still fairly minimal?

[Clark F Morris]

Or marijuana from British Columbia.

Clark Morris

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 18:26:05 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman put finger to
keyboard and typed:

The documentation requirements for travel between the UK and Ireland are
non-existant. The land border is completely open. Sea travel merely
requires a ticket. Air travel usually requires some form of photo ID, but
so do internal flights within the UK.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Charles Ellson]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 18:26:05 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

WRT to travel to/from the UK there are no general requirements as the
UK and the Republic of Ireland (along with Man and the Channel
Islands) form the "Common Travel Area". Air travel is the exception
although the requirement to have photo ID seems to be more a
requirement by the airline to prevent it being penalised for importing
unwelcome foreigners rather than a supposed terrorism threat.

[Arthur Figgis]

Yes. Though if you choose to use an aeroplane it can complicate things
in practice.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman put finger to keyboard and typed:

>>Are the documentation requirements to travel to and from Ireland
>>still fairly minimal?

>The documentation requirements for travel between the UK and Ireland are
>non-existant. The land border is completely open. Sea travel merely
>requires a ticket. Air travel usually requires some form of photo ID, but
>so do internal flights within the UK.

Thank you, everyone for the answer. That's what crossing the 49th parallel
should be like, sigh.

[Nick Leverton]

In article <jjgd0e$9vi$5...@news.albasani.net>,

Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

Ah, the guvmint wouldn't want all those lickspittle colonials, with
their dangerous ideas like free health care and legal cannabis, going
across uncontrolled ...

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

[Peter Masson]

"Charles Ellson" <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote

>>
> WRT to travel to/from the UK there are no general requirements as the
> UK and the Republic of Ireland (along with Man and the Channel
> Islands) form the "Common Travel Area". Air travel is the exception
> although the requirement to have photo ID seems to be more a
> requirement by the airline to prevent it being penalised for importing
> unwelcome foreigners rather than a supposed terrorism threat.

Do any of the Irish Sea ferries require photo id? I see that Northlink to
Orkney and Shetland does.

Peter

[John Levine]

>The documentation requirements for travel between the UK and Ireland are
>non-existant. The land border is completely open. Sea travel merely
>requires a ticket. Air travel usually requires some form of photo ID, but
>so do internal flights within the UK.

When I took a ferry from Holyhead to Dublin, there was a customs desk
at the Dublin end with a guy checking our papers. He stamped my US
passport. On the way back, there wasn't. This is consistent with
my experience flying, the Irish check passports, the UK doesn't.

R's,
John

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:19:26 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman put finger to

The difference, of course, is that Ireland was once part of the UK. When
Ireland gained full independence from the UK it was agreed by both
countries that the freedom of movement previously enjoyed by citizens of
the former single country should continue. That goes beyond a simple lack
of any need for documentation when crossing the border. British and Irish
citizens have always had complete freedom to live and work in both
countries and have all the benefits of citizenship in whichever country
they reside. To that extent, British and Irish passports are effectively
interchangeable; both give full citizenship rights in both countries.

[Mizter T]

It should be noted that the common travel area provisions only apply
to UK and Irish citizens (well to be precise it includes folk such as
Manx / Isle of Man citizens too, but that's details). Those from
elsewhere will need to take their passport and ID card, and non EU/EEA
citizens should ensure they have the right to enter the UK or Ireland
as appropriate.

[Arthur Figgis]

18th century tax-dodgers should have thought ahead.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:54:20 -0800 (PST), Mizter T put finger to keyboard

and typed:

>
>On Mar 10, 8:19 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Adam H. Kerman put finger to keyboard and typed:
>> >>Are the documentation requirements to travel to and from Ireland
>> >>still fairly minimal?
>> >The documentation requirements for travel between the UK and Ireland are
>> >non-existant. The land border is completely open. Sea travel merely
>> >requires a ticket. Air travel usually requires some form of photo ID, but
>> >so do internal flights within the UK.
>>
>> Thank you, everyone for the answer. That's what crossing the 49th parallel
>> should be like, sigh.
>
>It should be noted that the common travel area provisions only apply
>to UK and Irish citizens (well to be precise it includes folk such as
>Manx / Isle of Man citizens too, but that's details). Those from
>elsewhere will need to take their passport and ID card, and non EU/EEA
>citizens should ensure they have the right to enter the UK or Ireland
>as appropriate.

Given that there are no border controls, though, that requirement is
somewhat moot. Anyone who needs a passport to enter the UK will also need
one to enter Ireland, and vice versa, so there aren't very many cases where
someone can legally enter one country and then illegally enter the other.
(The most common would be someone who needs a visa to enter both countries
but only obtains it for one).

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:41:44 +0000 (UTC), John Levine put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>>The documentation requirements for travel between the UK and Ireland are
>>non-existant. The land border is completely open. Sea travel merely
>>requires a ticket. Air travel usually requires some form of photo ID, but
>>so do internal flights within the UK.
>
>When I took a ferry from Holyhead to Dublin, there was a customs desk
>at the Dublin end with a guy checking our papers. He stamped my US
>passport. On the way back, there wasn't. This is consistent with
>my experience flying, the Irish check passports, the UK doesn't.

There were no customs or border controls at either end the last time I
travelled to Ireland by ferry from Holyhead to Dublin (and back again).

I think there may be some notices posted which tell you that if you're not
a UK/Irish citizen then you need to check in at the customs desk before
continuing your journey, but it would be easy to evade if you were so
minded.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:38:11 -0000, Peter Masson put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>

Irish Ferries didn't, the last time I used them.

[John Albert]

On 3/10/12 1:04 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> "Defended" implies military defense, and AFAIK none are used along the
> US-Canada border on either side. Civilian law enforcement has always
> been there.

With the ever-increasing militarization of the police (and
other government agencies that have little need for "SWAT
teams", but have them anyway), the distinction between the
two is growing blurry....

- John

[John Levine]

>Given that there are no border controls, ...

But there are. I can tell you from experience that Ireland checks the
passports of incoming plane and ferry passengers.

[Charles Ellson]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 22:05:48 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:38:11 -0000, Peter Masson put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>
>>
>>"Charles Ellson" <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>>>
>>> WRT to travel to/from the UK there are no general requirements as the
>>> UK and the Republic of Ireland (along with Man and the Channel
>>> Islands) form the "Common Travel Area". Air travel is the exception
>>> although the requirement to have photo ID seems to be more a
>>> requirement by the airline to prevent it being penalised for importing
>>> unwelcome foreigners rather than a supposed terrorism threat.
>>
>>Do any of the Irish Sea ferries require photo id? I see that Northlink to
>>Orkney and Shetland does.
>

"This enables positive identification at check-in and ensures the
safety and security of all our passengers, crew and vessels."

Have they run this past Karen Dunbar ?
http://youtu.be/Uuqry9SMjQM (railway content at 1:15)

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 11/03/2012 03:08, John Levine wrote:
>> Given that there are no border controls, ...
>
> But there are. I can tell you from experience that Ireland checks the
> passports of incoming plane and ferry passengers.
>
> R's,
> John

Yes, they do. I also noticed on a flight back from Dublin that nobody on
the UK side checked my passport.

[Mizter T]

On Mar 11, 3:08 am, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> >Given that there are no border controls, ...
>
> But there are.  I can tell you from experience that Ireland checks the
> passports of incoming plane and ferry passengers.

If you are a British or Irish citizen, then all you need to do is
satisfy the Irish immigration official that you are a Brit / Irish -
no need for passports or the like. As you can imagine, there have been
reports of problems of British and Irish citizens of a darker hue
being asked to justify themselves.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 03:08:15 +0000 (UTC), John Levine put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>>Given that there are no border controls, ...
>
>But there are. I can tell you from experience that Ireland checks the
>passports of incoming plane and ferry passengers.

Not in my experience. Maybe they only check passports of people from
outside the UK and Ireland.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Black Irish?

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 11-Mar-12 09:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 03:08:15 +0000 (UTC), John Levine put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>>> Given that there are no border controls, ...
>>
>> But there are. I can tell you from experience that Ireland checks the
>> passports of incoming plane and ferry passengers.
>
> Not in my experience. Maybe they only check passports of people from
> outside the UK and Ireland.

How would they know where someone is from without checking their passport?

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[John Levine]

>>But there are. I can tell you from experience that Ireland checks the
>>passports of incoming plane and ferry passengers.
>
>Not in my experience. Maybe they only check passports of people from
>outside the UK and Ireland.

The last time I took the ferry to Ireland, which I will admit was
about a year and a half ago, there was a guy at a desk looking at
everyone's papers as the foot passengers got off the ferry. It
wasn't a big deal, but you couldn't walk right out.

I agree that I've never had a passport check going the other way,
which I've only done by air.

[Arthur Figgis]

On 11/03/2012 15:59, John Levine wrote:
>>> But there are. I can tell you from experience that Ireland checks the
>>> passports of incoming plane and ferry passengers.
>>
>> Not in my experience. Maybe they only check passports of people from
>> outside the UK and Ireland.
>
> The last time I took the ferry to Ireland, which I will admit was
> about a year and a half ago, there was a guy at a desk looking at
> everyone's papers as the foot passengers got off the ferry. It
> wasn't a big deal, but you couldn't walk right out.
>
> I agree that I've never had a passport check going the other way,
> which I've only done by air.

One one occasion I said "British" on arrival at the Irish ferry terminal
and was waved past. On a more recent trip I asked the guy at the desk
whether I actually had to show a passport; the impression I got was that
legally no I didn't, but they had ways of making life awkward if I
wanted to decline.

I've done five cross-border trips by train, and never seen any border
checks, though some booths appeared to exist which could presumably be
used should the occasion arise.

[Mizter T]

On Mar 11, 3:46 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> On 11-Mar-12 09:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 03:08:15 +0000 (UTC), John Levine put finger to
> > keyboard and typed:
>
> >>> Given that there are no border controls, ...
>
> >> But there are.  I can tell you from experience that Ireland checks the
> >> passports of incoming plane and ferry passengers.
>
> > Not in my experience. Maybe they only check passports of people from
> > outside the UK and Ireland.
>
> How would they know where someone is from without checking their passport?

How can they check someone's non-existent passport?

This Irish parliamentary debate provides a bit of background:
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0510/D.0510.199911160027.html

[Mizter T]

On Mar 11, 3:20 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> >If you are a British or Irish citizen, then all you need to do is
> >satisfy the Irish immigration official that you are a Brit / Irish -
> >no need for passports or the like. As you can imagine, there have been
> >reports of problems of British and Irish citizens of a darker hue
> >being asked to justify themselves.
>
> Black Irish?

Yes, and others.

[Clark F Morris]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:23:46 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
<ni...@leverton.org> wrote:

>In article <jjgd0e$9vi$5...@news.albasani.net>,
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman put finger to keyboard and typed:
>>
>>>>Are the documentation requirements to travel to and from Ireland
>>>>still fairly minimal?
>>
>>>The documentation requirements for travel between the UK and Ireland are
>>>non-existant. The land border is completely open. Sea travel merely
>>>requires a ticket. Air travel usually requires some form of photo ID, but
>>>so do internal flights within the UK.
>>
>>Thank you, everyone for the answer. That's what crossing the 49th parallel
>>should be like, sigh.
>
>Ah, the guvmint wouldn't want all those lickspittle colonials, with
>their dangerous ideas like free health care and legal cannabis, going
>across uncontrolled ...

Aside for licensed marijuana for limited health reasons, cannabis is
NOT legal in Canada despite massive growing in British Columbia. You
also would have to eliminate ALL tariffs between the two countries,
something which the various lobbies would be vehemently against, NATFA
not withstanding.

Clark Morris
>
>Nick

[Adam H. Kerman]

Clark F Morris <cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>Nick Leverton <ni...@leverton.org> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>Adam H. Kerman put finger to keyboard and typed:

>>>>>Are the documentation requirements to travel to and from Ireland
>>>>>still fairly minimal?

>>>>The documentation requirements for travel between the UK and Ireland are
>>>>non-existant. The land border is completely open. Sea travel merely
>>>>requires a ticket. Air travel usually requires some form of photo ID, but
>>>>so do internal flights within the UK.

>>>Thank you, everyone for the answer. That's what crossing the 49th parallel
>>>should be like, sigh.

>>Ah, the guvmint wouldn't want all those lickspittle colonials, with
>>their dangerous ideas like free health care and legal cannabis, going
>>across uncontrolled ...

>Aside for licensed marijuana for limited health reasons, cannabis is
>NOT legal in Canada despite massive growing in British Columbia. You
>also would have to eliminate ALL tariffs between the two countries,
>something which the various lobbies would be vehemently against, NATFA
>not withstanding.

Uh, yeah. Paper, lumber. I always loved how "free trade" includes so
much protectionism.

[amogles]

On 11 Mrz., 16:46, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
> How would they know where someone is from without checking their passport?
>

the Belfast accent, or lack thereof.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Arthur Figgis schrieb:


> While people criticise the USians for that, how many British people
> would have a passport if you could travel everywhere from London to
> Ekaterinburg[1] without one?


I can travel from Qaanaag (formerly: Thule) or Spitsbergen to Şemdinli
(quite close to Iran and Iraq) without a passport. Plus all of the EU,
plus Iceland, plus all of former Yugoslavia, Egypt, and under certain
travel arrangements, Tunisia and Marocco.

And no, I currently don't own a passport. Don't like getting treated
like a criminal. In the old days with normal passports, I used to have
one.



Hans-Joachim

[Adam H. Kerman]

Treated like a criminal? Here in America, criminals have rights.
Travelers don't.

[Arthur Figgis]

Like driving on the wrong side of the road or eating strange foods, what
Johnny Foreigner does in his country is his problem. As long as you need
a passport (or equivalent ID) at Dover, St Pancras and Heathrow, people
in Blighty can read their Daily Express in peace.


"To a German the pass is the proof of his existence, and the only title
he has to live and move unmolested by the police. Without it the law
does not recognise him, he falls into the rubric of vagabonds, thieves,
and fugitives from justice, of whom everything dangerous, from arson to
regicide, may be expected. A German without his 'legitimation' in his
pocket, therefore, feels like an assassin, who at any moment may feel
the grip of the police on his collar. An Englishman believes
(erroneously on the continent) that his presence in the shape of five
feet nine of respectability on any spot of the earth's surface is proof
enough at least that he must once have been born, and had a name; and
that no-body has charged him with swindling or theft is equally a proof
that the police have nothing to do with him."
The Living Age, 1851

[Roland Perry]

In message <slrnjm7qja.1hl...@Odysseus.Zierke.com>, at
01:35:38 on Sat, 17 Mar 2012, Hans-Joachim Zierke
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> remarked:

>> While people criticise the USians for that, how many British people
>> would have a passport if you could travel everywhere from London to
>> Ekaterinburg[1] without one?
>

>I can travel from Qaanaag (formerly: Thule) or Spitsbergen to 0 >(quite close to Iran and Iraq) without a passport. Plus all of the EU,

>plus Iceland, plus all of former Yugoslavia, Egypt, and under certain
>travel arrangements, Tunisia and Marocco.
>
>And no, I currently don't own a passport. Don't like getting treated
>like a criminal. In the old days with normal passports, I used to have
>one.

No doubt you have an ID-card from one of the EU nations which issue them
(and which other nations within the travel zone you describe accept as a
travel document).

There were proposals for a National ID Card in the UK, but it was very
unpopular, and scrapped; with people clearly preferring to have a
passport for travel.
--
Roland Perry

[Neil Williams]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:42:17 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

> There were proposals for a National ID Card in the UK, but it was
very
> unpopular, and scrapped; with people clearly preferring to have a
> passport for travel.

FWIW it was the National Identity Register I had an issue with, as
well as any concept of compulsory identity. A "passport card" for EU
travel would have been most useful.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

[Roland Perry]

In message <almarsoft.4585...@news.individual.net>, at
11:25:59 on Sat, 17 Mar 2012, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
remarked:

>> There were proposals for a National ID Card in the UK, but it was
>>very unpopular, and scrapped; with people clearly preferring to have
>>a passport for travel.
>
>FWIW it was the National Identity Register I had an issue with, as well
>as any concept of compulsory identity. A "passport card" for EU travel
>would have been most useful.

It would, and I've have got one because of that. As for the NIR, I'm not
at all sure it was that much of an issue, unless the ID Card became a
"key to the door" for a multitude of private sector transactions that
currently require utility bills. And I'm not sure that was ever going to
happen.
--
Roland Perry

[Arthur Figgis]

Though how long would it have been before people couldn't interact with
"officialdom" without one?

[Roland Perry]

In message <lfudnVZj2f0HbfnS...@brightview.co.uk>, at
20:14:26 on Sat, 17 Mar 2012, Arthur Figgis
<afi...@example.com.invalid> remarked:

>> FWIW it was the National Identity Register I had an issue with, as well
>> as any concept of compulsory identity. A "passport card" for EU travel
>> would have been most useful.
>
>Though how long would it have been before people couldn't interact with
>"officialdom" without one?

But that's all being tracked anyway (or could be if they wanted to).
--
Roland Perry

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Arthur Figgis schrieb:

> Like driving on the wrong side of the road or eating strange foods, what
> Johnny Foreigner does in his country is his problem. As long as you need
> a passport (or equivalent ID) at Dover, St Pancras and Heathrow, people
> in Blighty can read their Daily Express in peace.

I'll travel to Britain without a passport as well. In fact, I already
did in the 70s.

> "To a German the pass is the proof of his existence, and the only title
> he has to live and move unmolested by the police. Without it the law
> does not recognise him, he falls into the rubric of vagabonds, thieves,
> and fugitives from justice, of whom everything dangerous, from arson to
> regicide, may be expected. A German without his 'legitimation' in his
> pocket, therefore, feels like an assassin, who at any moment may feel
> the grip of the police on his collar. An Englishman believes
> (erroneously on the continent) that his presence in the shape of five
> feet nine of respectability on any spot of the earth's surface is proof
> enough at least that he must once have been born, and had a name; and
> that no-body has charged him with swindling or theft is equally a proof
> that the police have nothing to do with him."
> The Living Age, 1851

People always complain about the low quality of today's press, but if you
look closer, the press was also knowledge-free junk in ... for example:
1851.


The passport was MAJOR PROGRESS, and properly celebrated by the Germans!
The "Passkarte" was established by the Dresdner Konvention of 1850, and
did away with the visa requirements. There was no Germany in 1851,

http://www.atlassen.info/atlassen/perthes/ptawd01/picslarge/ptawd1850k013.jpg

and until 1850, you needed a visum for Prussia, a visum for Hannover, a
visum for Bavaria, for Baden, for Württemberg, for Mecklenburg, for
Sachsen... Traveling across of what is Germany today was a nightmare. The
establishment of the "Passkarte" in 1850 did away with that.



Hans-Joachim

[Arthur Figgis]

On 18/03/2012 03:48, Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
>
> Arthur Figgis schrieb:
>
>
>> Like driving on the wrong side of the road or eating strange foods, what
>> Johnny Foreigner does in his country is his problem. As long as you need
>> a passport (or equivalent ID) at Dover, St Pancras and Heathrow, people
>> in Blighty can read their Daily Express in peace.
>
> I'll travel to Britain without a passport as well. In fact, I already
> did in the 70s.

And no other ID?

>> "To a German the pass is the proof of his existence, and the only title
>> he has to live and move unmolested by the police. Without it the law
>> does not recognise him, he falls into the rubric of vagabonds, thieves,
>> and fugitives from justice, of whom everything dangerous, from arson to
>> regicide, may be expected. A German without his 'legitimation' in his
>> pocket, therefore, feels like an assassin, who at any moment may feel
>> the grip of the police on his collar. An Englishman believes
>> (erroneously on the continent) that his presence in the shape of five
>> feet nine of respectability on any spot of the earth's surface is proof
>> enough at least that he must once have been born, and had a name; and
>> that no-body has charged him with swindling or theft is equally a proof
>> that the police have nothing to do with him."
>> The Living Age, 1851
>
> People always complain about the low quality of today's press, but if you
> look closer, the press was also knowledge-free junk in ... for example:
> 1851.
>
>
> The passport was MAJOR PROGRESS, and properly celebrated by the Germans!
> The "Passkarte" was established by the Dresdner Konvention of 1850, and
> did away with the visa requirements. There was no Germany in 1851,

But there were Germans.

> http://www.atlassen.info/atlassen/perthes/ptawd01/picslarge/ptawd1850k013.jpg
>
> and until 1850, you needed a visum for Prussia, a visum for Hannover, a
> visum for Bavaria, for Baden, for Württemberg, for Mecklenburg, for
> Sachsen...

I think that is the point!

> Traveling across of what is Germany today was a nightmare. The
> establishment of the "Passkarte" in 1850 did away with that.

1850 is close enough to 1851 for that kind of article.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Arthur Figgis schrieb:

>> I'll travel to Britain without a passport as well. In fact, I already
>> did in the 70s.
>
> And no other ID?

Britain accepted the national ID card of Germany in the 70s. I'm quite
sure that Germans needed a passport after WWII, don't know the date of
change.
But it was already good for all of Europe west of the Iron Curtain,
Yugoslavia included.

>> The passport was MAJOR PROGRESS, and properly celebrated by the Germans!
>> The "Passkarte" was established by the Dresdner Konvention of 1850, and
>> did away with the visa requirements. There was no Germany in 1851,
>
> But there were Germans.

At that time, the nation state was a progressive project, which had
failed bitterly three years before with shrapnells grenades fired into
the streets of Berlin, with long-term ugly consequences for the whole
continent.

>> and until 1850, you needed a visum for Prussia, a visum for Hannover, a
>> visum for Bavaria, for Baden, for Württemberg, for Mecklenburg, for
>> Sachsen...
>
> I think that is the point!

For a journey across today's Germany, the "Passkarte" replaced half a
dozen visa, plus the bureaucracy to get them. The solution was forced by
the rapid development of railways, which brings us almost on topic.

>> Traveling across of what is Germany today was a nightmare. The
>> establishment of the "Passkarte" in 1850 did away with that.
>
>
> 1850 is close enough to 1851 for that kind of article.

Pardon?

If /today's/ Britons don't know, that you needed all these visa in
Germany, and the "Passkarte" was a great thing therefore, this is fully
understandable. 99% of the Germans don't either.

But back then, writing such article without any knowledge of the most
simple facts qualifies the author for what we call a "Merkbefreiung".(1)


Hans-Joachim



(1)
============ Form sheet === Merkbefreiung ===============================

Die nachstehend eindeutig identifizierte Lebensform

Name : ____________________
Vorname : ____________________
Geburtsdatum : __________
Geburtsort : ____________________
Personalausweisnummer: ____________________

ist hiermit für den Zeitraum von

[_] 6 Monaten
[_] 12 Monaten
[_] 24 Monaten
[_] unbefristet

davon befreit, etwas zu merken, d.h. wesentliche
Verhaltensänderungen bei der Interaktion mit denkenden Wesen zu
zeigen. Die Einstufung der o.a. Person nach dem amtlichen Index
für Merkbefreiungen liegt bei dem Äquivalent von

[_] einem Mensaessen vom Vortag
[_] drei Hartkeksen in löslichem Kaffee
[_] einer Kiste Schwarzbrot in Dosen
[_] einem Quadratmeterstück Torfmoos während einer
sechswöchigen Sommerdürre
[_] einem Container erodiertem Sandstein
(Streusandqualität)

Die ausgesprochene Merkbefreiung erlischt mit dem Ablauf des

[_] __.__.19__
[_] __.__.20__
[_] der vollständigen Erosion der körperlichen
Bestandteile der o.a. Lebensform

und gilt, sofern die o.a. Lebensform durch das nachstehende
Kennzeichen als merkbefreit zu identifizieren ist:

[_] eine rote Plastiknase
[_] olives Stoffstück mit weißem Rand, auf der Schulter
zu tragen
[_] die Lebensform ist durch den Gesichtsausdruck
zweifelsfrei als unbefristet merkbefreit zu
erkennen.

Die o.a. Lebensform ist durch den Erwerb dieses
Merkbefreiungsscheins automatisch für die folgenden Tätigkeiten
qualifiziert:

[_] Markierungshütchen bei Abmarkierungsarbeiten auf
Bundesautobahnen
[_] Garderobenständer und Regenschirmständer in
Restaurants bis zu, aber nicht eingeschlossen, 3
Sterne
[_] Regelstab in Schwerwasserreaktoren
[_] Markierungsstab für das Fahrwasser im Nationalpark
Wattenmeer
[_] Landschaftsmerkmal/Orientierungshilfe in der Wüste
Gobi

Die Merkbefreiung für die o.a. Lebensform wurde in einem
öffentlichen Merkbefreiungsverfahren ausgesprochen und ist nach
Ablauf der Einspruchsfrist von 17 Sekunden rechtskräftig.

Datum Unterschrift Dienstsiegel



Stirnabdruck des Merkbefreiten


Diese Merkfreiung wurde elektronisch erstellt und ist deswegen
nicht unterschrieben.

=========================================================================

[Graeme Wall]

On 19/03/2012 01:30, Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
>
> Arthur Figgis schrieb:
>
>
>>> I'll travel to Britain without a passport as well. In fact, I already
>>> did in the 70s.
>>
>> And no other ID?
>
> Britain accepted the national ID card of

West

> Germany in the 70s. I'm quite
> sure that Germans needed a passport after WWII, don't know the date of
> change.
> But it was already good for all of Europe west of the Iron Curtain,
> Yugoslavia included.
>

Since then we've had 9-11.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

[Arthur Figgis]

On 19/03/2012 01:30, Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
>

> Arthur Figgis schrieb:
>
>
>>> I'll travel to Britain without a passport as well. In fact, I already
>>> did in the 70s.
>>
>> And no other ID?
>
> Britain accepted the national ID card of Germany in the 70s. I'm quite
> sure that Germans needed a passport after WWII, don't know the date of
> change.
> But it was already good for all of Europe west of the Iron Curtain,
> Yugoslavia included.

An ID card amounts to the same thing from here.

>>> The passport was MAJOR PROGRESS, and properly celebrated by the Germans!
>>> The "Passkarte" was established by the Dresdner Konvention of 1850, and
>>> did away with the visa requirements. There was no Germany in 1851,
>>
>> But there were Germans.
>
> At that time, the nation state was a progressive project, which had
> failed bitterly three years before with shrapnells grenades fired into
> the streets of Berlin, with long-term ugly consequences for the whole
> continent.
>
>
>>> and until 1850, you needed a visum for Prussia, a visum for Hannover, a
>>> visum for Bavaria, for Baden, for Württemberg, for Mecklenburg, for
>>> Sachsen...
>>
>> I think that is the point!
>
> For a journey across today's Germany, the "Passkarte" replaced half a
> dozen visa, plus the bureaucracy to get them. The solution was forced by
> the rapid development of railways, which brings us almost on topic.
>
>
>
>>> Traveling across of what is Germany today was a nightmare. The
>>> establishment of the "Passkarte" in 1850 did away with that.
>>
>>
>> 1850 is close enough to 1851 for that kind of article.
>
> Pardon?

Publication times were presumably somewhat slower than now. A Smart
Phone was the size of a house and could only carry enough coal to last
to mid-afternoon, and Twitter relied on sending each hashtag by
messenger boy, or something.

> If /today's/ Britons don't know, that you needed all these visa in
> Germany, and the "Passkarte" was a great thing therefore, this is fully
> understandable. 99% of the Germans don't either.

They did know. They read it it in magazines...

Now, what paperwork did Britons need to move around the UKoGB&I, or even
the British Empire?

[Sam Wilson]

In article <odsjFeG5...@perry.co.uk>,

There used to be a similar situation in the UK with the British
Visitor's Passport. IIRC you took your birth certificate, your suitably
ID-ed photos and a small amount of money to the Post Office and they
issued you a document which allowed you to travel around most of western
Europe and a few other places beside. Very convenient it was too - I
had two or three before they were abolished or I needed to go somewhere
else - I can't remember which came first.

Sam

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

[Graeme Wall]

IIRC they were only valid for a year.

[Colin Youngs]

"Graeme Wall" <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> schreef

: On 19/03/2012 01:30, Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:

: > Britain accepted the national ID card of

: West

: > Germany in the 70s. I'm quite
: > sure that Germans needed a passport after WWII, don't know the date of
: > change.
: > But it was already good for all of Europe west of the Iron Curtain,
: > Yugoslavia included.

: Since then we've had 9-11.

A national ID card from an EU country which issues them is valid for travel
to all other EU countries.

Colin Youngs
Brussels

[Sam Wilson]

In article <0_D9r.1981$_f2....@newsfe17.ams2>,

Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On 19/03/2012 10:32, Sam Wilson wrote:

> > ... British
> > Visitor's Passport. ...

>
> IIRC they were only valid for a year.

Yep, that's right.

[Graeme Wall]

I'm not quite sure why having to produce an ID card is acceptable to the
OP but having to produce a passport is being treated like a criminal.

[Mizter T]

On 19/03/2012 12:31, Graeme Wall wrote:

> On 19/03/2012 11:20, Colin Youngs wrote:

>> [...]

>> A national ID card from an EU country which issues them is valid for
>> travel to all other EU countries.
>>
>
> I'm not quite sure why having to produce an ID card is acceptable to the
> OP but having to produce a passport is being treated like a criminal.

Quite. Perhaps HJZ would like to elaborate?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 19/03/2012 01:30, Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
>>Arthur Figgis schrieb:

>>>>I'll travel to Britain without a passport as well. In fact, I already
>>>>did in the 70s.

>>>And no other ID?

>>Britain accepted the national ID card of

>West

>>Germany in the 70s. I'm quite
>>sure that Germans needed a passport after WWII, don't know the date of
>>change.
>>But it was already good for all of Europe west of the Iron Curtain,
>>Yugoslavia included.

>Since then we've had 9-11.

. . . the perpetrators of which were in compliance with US immigration law.
Terrorist conspirators with enough lead time will do their utmost to appear
to comply with the immigration laws of whatever country they target.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 19/03/2012 11:20, Colin Youngs wrote:
>>"Graeme Wall"<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> schreef
>>>On 19/03/2012 01:30, Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:

>>>>Britain accepted the national ID card of

>>>West

>>>>Germany in the 70s. I'm quite
>>>>sure that Germans needed a passport after WWII, don't know the date of
>>>>change.
>>>>But it was already good for all of Europe west of the Iron Curtain,
>>>>Yugoslavia included.

>>>Since then we've had 9-11.

>>A national ID card from an EU country which issues them is valid for travel
>>to all other EU countries.

>I'm not quite sure why having to produce an ID card is acceptable to the
>OP but having to produce a passport is being treated like a criminal.

A passport implies conceding to laws restricting human travel internationally,
and in some cases, domestically. An identity card, in and of itself, is
neutral on travel restrictions even though it can be an acceptable form of
identification in lieu of a passport.

That being said, I know a guy who shows his passport whenever ID is demanded
of him, in lieu of a driver's license, because it doesn't state his address
on its face and because cashiers and security guards aren't often equipped
to deal with them.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Graeme Wall schrieb:

>> But it was already good for all of Europe west of the Iron Curtain,
>> Yugoslavia included.
>>
>
> Since then we've had 9-11.

...performed by people with correct papers.


The German ID card is still valid from Greenland, Iceland and Spitsbergen
to Turkey and Egypt. And yes, also valid for Britain.



Hans-Joachim

[Graeme Wall]

Logic and Bureaucracy are uneasy bedfellows.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jk7fd1$r0a$4...@news.albasani.net>, at 14:21:21 on Mon, 19 Mar
2012, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> remarked:

>A passport implies conceding to laws restricting human travel internationally,
>and in some cases, domestically. An identity card, in and of itself, is
>neutral on travel restrictions

So are white socks.

>even though it can be an acceptable form of
>identification in lieu of a passport.

In which case you are conceding to the exact same law.
--
Roland Perry

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Mizter T schrieb:

Passports now include fingerprinting.


Hans-Joachim

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Colin Youngs schrieb:

> A national ID card from an EU country which issues them is valid for travel
> to all other EU countries.

When I first traveled to Britain with my ID card, Britain was no EU
member.

Back then, the "card" was still a small, wallet-size thin booklet, much
smaller than a passport.



Hans-Joachim

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Adam H. Kerman schrieb:

> That being said, I know a guy who shows his passport whenever ID is demanded
> of him, in lieu of a driver's license, because it doesn't state his address
> on its face

US driving licenses include the address?


Hans-Joachim

[Roland Perry]

In message <slrnjmekau.nh...@Odysseus.Zierke.com>, at
15:31:42 on Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Hans-Joachim Zierke
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> remarked:

>>> I'm not quite sure why having to produce an ID card is acceptable to the
>>> OP but having to produce a passport is being treated like a criminal.
>>
>> Quite. Perhaps HJZ would like to elaborate?
>
>Passports now include fingerprinting.

None that I've seen.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <slrnjmekln.n16...@Odysseus.Zierke.com>, at
15:37:27 on Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Hans-Joachim Zierke
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> remarked:

>US driving licenses include the address?

Yes, and quite strict rules about keeping it up to date (and including
for many states, taking fingerprints).

Also lots of other stuff like height and weight, when you passed the
test. And the one I have here has a huge 2-d barcode on the back, with
who knows what encoded on it (biometric code derived from the photo,
according to some pundits).
--
Roland Perry

[Mizter T]

Aha, ok, understood.

FWIW there's no fingerprinting requirement for a UK passport. I don't
think it'd be a very popular proposal at all, were it ever to be on the
agenda.

[Graeme Wall]

On 19/03/2012 15:31, Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:

ID cards may do yet.

[Mizter T]

As do some European driving licenses - e.g. UK (GB & NI), Ireland, Poland.

In the UK you don't need to carry your UK driving licence with you when
driving.

[Stephen Sprunk]

The EU requirement for fingerprints is binding on Schengen signatories,
effective 29 June 2009. Other EU countries are required to have
"biometric" (i.e. RFID) passports, but they are only required to have a
photo; fingerprints (and other biometric data) is optional for now.

S



--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[Mizter T]

I think it's now a requirement of the Schengen rules (i.e. for those
states that have fully signed up, so not the UK).

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

You are required to produce it when asked. However if you fail to do so
you have a week to do so at a nominated police station before you are
prosecuted for the offence.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 19-Mar-12 10:56, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <slrnjmekln.n16...@Odysseus.Zierke.com>, at
> 15:37:27 on Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Hans-Joachim Zierke
> <Usenet...@Zierke.com> remarked:
>> US driving licenses include the address?
>
> Yes, and quite strict rules about keeping it up to date

... since the DL/ID card is often accepted as proof of residency in a
particular state.

> (and including for many states, taking fingerprints).

... to supposedly prevent "identity theft", though in reality it's to
prevent a single person from getting multiple cards in different names.

> Also lots of other stuff like height and weight, when you passed the
> test.

It should be noted that DL and ID cards usually come from the same state
agency; a DL card is just an ID card with a few extra driving-related
fields (or, alternately, an ID card is just a DL card with the
driving-related fields removed).

> And the one I have here has a huge 2-d barcode on the back, with
> who knows what encoded on it (biometric code derived from the photo,
> according to some pundits).

Judging by the size and the usual bit density of such barcodes, the one
on mine appears to be a simple machine-readable encoding of the data on
the face. This is a logical extension of encoding a (limited) subset of
that data on a magstripe.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 19-Mar-12 11:32, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 19-Mar-12 10:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>> And the one I have here has a huge 2-d barcode on the back, with
>> who knows what encoded on it (biometric code derived from the photo,
>> according to some pundits).
>
> Judging by the size and the usual bit density of such barcodes, the one
> on mine appears to be a simple machine-readable encoding of the data on
> the face. This is a logical extension of encoding a (limited) subset of
> that data on a magstripe.

I did a little research and found the REAL ID Act mandates a particular
barcode format (PDF-417) and data format, and I found a web site that
will decode a photo of the barcode. Here are the fields encoded on my
license:

"Issuer Identification Number"
"Issuer Name"
"Issuer Name Abbreviated"
"Jurisdiction-specific vehicle class"
"Jurisdiction-specific restriction codes"
"Jurisdiction-specific endorsement codes"
"Document Expiration Date"
"Customer Family Name"
"Customer Given Names"
"Document Issue Date"
"Date of Birth"
"Physical Description – Sex"
"Physical Description – Eye Color"
"Physical Description – Height"
"Address – Street 1"
"Address – City"
"Address – Jurisdiction Code"
"Address – Postal Code"
"Customer ID Number"
"Document Discriminator"
"Country Identification"
"Federal Commercial Vehicle Codes"
"Hair color"
"Name Suffix"
"Optional field A" (Weight)
"Optional field B" (Race)

My hair color, weight and race are not on the face of my current cards,
but they were on previous versions, and they're hardly secrets. Race is
obvious from the photo, and hair color and weight are so variable that
they're more of a hindrance than a help in identifying people, which is
probably why they're not on the face.

There is nothing encoding the picture or any other information not on
the face, as some conspiracy theorists claim.

[Neil Williams]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:31:42 +0000 (UTC), Hans-Joachim Zierke
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> Passports now include fingerprinting.

UK ones don't.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

[Roland Perry]

In message <jk7n3c$q2s$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:32:43 on Mon, 19 Mar
2012, Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> remarked:

>> And the one I have here has a huge 2-d barcode on the back, with
>> who knows what encoded on it (biometric code derived from the photo,
>> according to some pundits).
>
>Judging by the size and the usual bit density of such barcodes, the one
>on mine appears to be a simple machine-readable encoding of the data on
>the face. This is a logical extension of encoding a (limited) subset of
>that data on a magstripe.

Is yours like the barcode at the top, or at the bottom?

<http://www.instructables.com/image/F98YL0WJYVET9K5QP3/Decode-Your-
License.jpg>
--
Roland Perry

[Stephen Sprunk]

Both, plus there is a magstripe near the top, in the same position as on
a credit card. The upper (1D) bar code stretches from the magstripe to
the edge of the card. My comments above were directed at the lower (2D)
barcode, which is the one conspiracy theorists go nuts about.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jk7rn5$n7q$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:51:32 on Mon, 19 Mar

2012, Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> remarked:

>>> Judging by the size and the usual bit density of such barcodes, the one
>>> on mine appears to be a simple machine-readable encoding of the data on
>>> the face. This is a logical extension of encoding a (limited) subset of
>>> that data on a magstripe.
>>
>> Is yours like the barcode at the top, or at the bottom?
>>
>> <http://www.instructables.com/image/F98YL0WJYVET9K5QP3/Decode-Your-
>> License.jpg>
>
>Both, plus there is a magstripe near the top, in the same position as on
>a credit card. The upper (1D) bar code stretches from the magstripe to
>the edge of the card. My comments above were directed at the lower (2D)
>barcode, which is the one conspiracy theorists go nuts about.

The barcode is far too dense to have only the basic details you listed
on it.
--
Roland Perry