Process for flying home early without a Passport?

[Terpnut]

We are probably all making this more complicated than it is.

It IS complicated because our gov't allowed a stupid waiver on the one hand but is adamant about restricting flights to US citizens with valid US passports on the other hand. Do you see the trap? I think it is a huge mistake to think that, because the gov't created the waiver, that they must've considered how their citizens would actually be able to take advantage of it.

No US citizen is going to be permanently banned from flying back home. They are going to get permission to go home once their citizenship is established, it's only a question of how long this will take.

As the only legitimate way to establish one's citizenship is with a valid passport, my only conclusion is that the gov't wants you to either get a passport now, or get it later (while you're in the Caribbean) if and when you should need it.

Since the gov't has excused cruise passengers from the obligation of having a passport, I find it highly unlikely that they would make it too horribly difficult to get home in extreme circumstances, particularly ones that involve emergencies back home vs. people who have missed their ship in port due to irresponsibility.

The gov't likely created the waiver to minimize the "inconvenience" on the cruise industry and its customers. However the strict requirements for other purposes, such as flying home, are done so in a completely different context and obviously don't consider cruise passengers trying to get home in an emergency. So I think the gov't is saying that it's okay to cruise without a passport, but god help you if you should have an emergency and need to fly home because you must be treated just like anybody else trying to enter the US without proper documentation. U.S. officials overseas (e.g. consular officers, border agents, etc.) cannot know if you're a terrorist or a U.S. citizen so I would think they MUST make everyone without a valid US passport go through the rigorous, time-consuming and costly process of authenticating who they are. And again, this is basically like getting or replacing a passport!

[TPKeller]

We are probably all making this more complicated than it is. No US citizen is going to be permanently banned from flying back home. They are going to get permission to go home once their citizenship is established, it's only a question of how long this will take. Since the gov't has excused cruise passengers from the obligation of having a passport, I find it highly unlikely that they would make it too horribly difficult to get home in extreme circumstances, particularly ones that involve emergencies back home vs. people who have missed their ship in port due to irresponsibility.

I tend to agree with your assessment. The more I read the WHTI document, the more I see that it is merely an implementation of the laws pass by congress, in the form of rules and directives set forth by the Departments of Homeland Security and State, in their attempt to comply with those laws.

 

I've read much of the document, there is no section labeled "THIS PART IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE REST". The requirement to present a passport to fly is there. The requirement to present a passport to cruise is there. The exemption for US Citizens cruising round trip is there. The passport waiver for emergency situations is there. It's all there, in the same rule, all to be implemented by DHS and DOS.

 

[by the way, it is interesting to note that the passport waiver in Section VI.F is not associated with the Cruise Ship Passenger exemption in Section VI.A. The two paragraphs are independent of each other, all under Section VI, titled simply "Special Rules for Specific Populations".]

 

Having said that, I think there is much merit to the point that we don't know what the "hassle factor" will be. It (the process for obtaining a waiver to return by air) is not defined in the legislation, and it's not in the rule. I would certainly not put it past an office full of government bureaucrats to advance some personal or department agenda in how they choose to implement that part of the law/rule.

 

The answer to that question is the very point of this thread, and hopefully I'll hear back from my written inquiry in a manner which can be shared here.

 

Theron

[Terpnut]

Having said that, I think there is much merit to the point that we don't know what the "hassle factor" will be. It (the process for obtaining a waiver to return by air) is not defined in the legislation, and it's not in the rule. I would certainly not put it past an office full of government bureaucrats to advance some personal or department agenda in how they choose to implement that part of the law/rule.

 

The answer to that question is the very point of this thread, and hopefully I'll hear back from my written inquiry in a manner which can be shared here.

 

Theron

While certainly the intentions of this waiver might be good, I just don't see any way for the government to execute it properly. If we all agree that border protection and national security are truly national priorities, then passports must be universally recognized as the only authoritative ID and citizenship document, and it alone is required for reentry into the country. So, at the risk of repeating my previous point, a "hassle-free" means of getting back into the US without a valid passport should not be created or ever be allowed to exist. This is not to say such a waiver procedure (for which you seek to information on) doesn't exist--just that it really doesn't make any logical sense. I'm not advocating that US citizens be left permanently stranded overseas, but do feel that they should be treated just like anyone else who slipped out the country without their passport. The fact that current regulations allow cruise passengers to sail without their passport is largely irrelevant and mostly serves to confuse the general public.

 

Again, I sincerely hope we get some information as to whether a waiver procedure in fact exists and exactly what it entails. However, in the absence of specific information or guidance to the contrary, I think it would be highly prudent for all cruise travelers to just carry their passports.

 

In summary, if I am right, I think the FUD that Theron seeks to clear is the waiver itself. I think it's really a misleading, politically-motivated and not-well-thought-out exception that can't really be implemented or at least implemented well.

[Moeve]

In summary right now it would mean passengers without passports will have another thing to consider when things are already going wrong for them. This would be if it isn't more prudent to stay onboard until the cruise ends rather than getting off on the island and spending days and bundles of extra money to get passports from the consulary and returning home. Which brings us almost full circle - most of those passengers without passport do it because of the cost involved - yet they take the risk of needing to spend several times the original cost of those passports when things do go wrong - that does leave me wondering how they can suddenly afford THAT.

[nrdsb4]

While certainly the intentions of this waiver might be good, I just don't see any way for the government to execute it properly. If we all agree that border protection and national security are truly national priorities, then passports must be universally recognized as the only authoritative ID and citizenship document, and it alone is required for reentry into the country. So, at the risk of repeating my previous point, a "hassle-free" means of getting back into the US without a valid passport should not be created or ever be allowed to exist. This is not to say such a waiver procedure (for which you seek to information on) doesn't exist--just that it really doesn't make any logical sense. I'm not advocating that US citizens be left permanently stranded overseas, but do feel that they should be treated just like anyone else who slipped out the country without their passport. The fact that current regulations allow cruise passengers to sail without their passport is largely irrelevant and mostly serves to confuse the general public.

 

Again, I sincerely hope we get some information as to whether a waiver procedure in fact exists and exactly what it entails. However, in the absence of specific information or guidance to the contrary, I think it would be highly prudent for all cruise travelers to just carry their passports.

 

In summary, if I am right, I think the FUD that Theron seeks to clear is the waiver itself. I think it's really a misleading, politically-motivated and not-well-thought-out exception that can't really be implemented or at least implemented well.

 

Well, this is where we will have to disagree. The US gov't has told cruise passengers they do not need a passport to travel. I fail to see why a cruise passenger with a legitimate emergency should be treated the same as someone who essentially broke the law by "slipping out of the country without a passport." These folks would not be criminals, they would just be in a bad situation partly created by their own governments.

 

As for these people "having to get a passport" in the Caribbean, at possibly days or weeks' delay, that has not been established as a fact yet and some are treating it as such. The "waiver" wording suggests to me that it's possible that a person could establish their citizenship through other means (after all, one must establish one's identity and citizenship when applying for a passport,and all that really takes is a birth certificate, a government id, and a few responses to questions) and receive a temporary waiver, be sent home, and still have to apply for a passport once back home if they decide they want one.

 

What I don't get is the sentiment that some people on this board WANT these cruise people to suffer through a huge ordeal in the event of a legitimate emergency. They haven't done anything wrong, they've followed the law and policies set out by their government by bringing only their bc and government id in order to cruise.

 

As I have a passport, this is not a huge issue for me, but I do feel for the people who waited for the government's final word on this issue, are complying with the law, yet could find themselves treated as though they are somehow completely irresponsible.

[Moeve]

You know we should all go into politics because if all governments around the world were as careful about the wording of new legistation as we are to reading it - we would save a lot of people lots of trouble.

 

We are back to the wording - it's ok to CRUISE (and by the way there is a BUT to that tooo) if it is round trip to the SAME port - this already EXCLUDES cruises like transpanama repositioners and all repositions cruises for this matter too.

 

You know to make things easier for all including themselves US lawmakers should have made passports available at a decent price (but then again the Technik the US insited upon a few years back only comes at a price - even if they still cannot use the RFID tech yet) at the same time doing away with all other loopholes and exceptions and be done with it.

[Terpnut]

Well, this is where we will have to disagree. The US gov't has told cruise passengers they do not need a passport to travel. I fail to see why a cruise passenger with a legitimate emergency should be treated the same as someone who essentially broke the law by "slipping out of the country without a passport." These folks would not be criminals, they would just be in a bad situation partly created by their own governments.

People who leave the country without their passport are not breaking any laws--at least not ours. Just like a cruise passenger, they need their passport to reenter our country. So the two groups are the same.

As for these people "having to get a passport" in the Caribbean, at possibly days or weeks' delay, that has not been established as a fact yet and some are treating it as such. The "waiver" wording suggests to me that it's possible that a person could establish their citizenship through other means (after all, one must establish one's identity and citizenship when applying for a passport,and all that really takes is a birth certificate, a government id, and a few responses to questions) and receive a temporary waiver, be sent home, and still have to apply for a passport once back home if they decide they want one.

I am not saying authoritatively that "having to get a passport" is the reality--only that this is the only thing that makes any sense from a practical perspective. At the risk of beating a dead horse, the only valid "government id" to which you allude to (i.e. valid proof of identification and citizenship) is a passport. This is incontrovertible.

 

The "exception handling" process you describe (accepting birth certificates and state-issued drivers licenses) was never meant to be a permanent or authoritative procedure because it can't be authoritative or secure. BC, DLs and phone calls can all be easily forged, and there is no central way/means to validate them, so how can a border protection officer accept these types of things? If they are doing their job and have half a brain, they must assume the worst, and ask for something better for proof of citizenship. Any terrorist could probably forge and provide a Kansas birth certificate and a Minnesota driver license. So in this type of climate, how will you prove you're a US citizen without your passport? The burden of proof is on you, not our government. This is why I am saying the only practical, standardized and secure means of authenticating our citizens and protecting our borders is using a valid passport. There is no other possible procedure that can work.

What I don't get is the sentiment that some people on this board WANT these cruise people to suffer through a huge ordeal in the event of a legitimate emergency. They haven't done anything wrong, they've followed the law and policies set out by their government by bringing only their bc and government id in order to cruise.

 

As I have a passport, this is not a huge issue for me, but I do feel for the people who waited for the government's final word on this issue, are complying with the law, yet could find themselves treated as though they are somehow completely irresponsible.

I don't want people to suffer any more than you do. But what I am saying is that, just because somebody in the government provides a waiver, does not mean that somebody else in the government actually provided a practical or non-hassle means of exploiting it. And, in the absence of somebody posting printed and verifiable procedures, we would all be well advised to assume they either don't exist, or don't exist in a practical way. Why are so many people here set on "the government established a waiver, so there must be a way". I'm not so sure. Why must there be a way? There are many federal regulations that either don't make sense, can't be implemented and/or can't be enforced. Thus my suggestion is to ignore the waiver and have your passport unless and until somebody comes up with something concrete in this thread! Given all I just said, I conclude to cruise without your passport may not be "irresponsible" but it is certainly very very risky!

[TPKeller]

I think the difference is that I'm trying to see a hole, and you're trying not to! ;)

Some folks really, really, really don't want to see it...

 

:)

 

Theron

[Terpnut]

Some folks really, really, really don't want to see it...

 

:)

 

Theron

We can't see what's not there. The waiver in of itself is not the hole. The waiver and usable procedures to take advantage of it would be the hole. Here's hoping you can prove me wrong and show me the hole! :D

[Don Pedro]

Undoubtedly, the special passport excemption for cruise ship passengers has created its own set of potential problems.

 

But regardless of whether a cruise ship passenger, who has never had a passport, or a traveler who has had their passport lost or stolen, is stranded in a foreign land there should be an expeditious procedure to get them back onto US soil.

 

If a US citizen has left the US through legimate channels a data base has been created. In the case of cruise ship passenger, the stranded passenger's name will appear on the manifest that was submitted to Immigration prior to sailing. The cruise line even has the passenger's picture to verify their identity.

 

Should this be a free pass or a reason not to get a passport? Absolutely not! We don't, however, agree with the concept that being stranded abroad for days or weeks waiting for a passport to be issued or replaced is a just punishment. Especially when our borders still leak like a rusted out bucket.

 

Anyone, entering the USA via a waiver granted by Immigration authorities should be require to pay a processing fee. For someone who has never had a passport that fee should be $1000. In the case of someone who had their passport lost or stolen the fee should be considerably less, maybe $250.

 

We think that the potential of facing a $1000 per person processing fee would be ample incentive for cruise passengers to obtain passports.

[2bFREEonTHEseas]

The government should have NEVER created that rule in the first place, but that is pare course for those clown on Capital Hill. I think anyone who leaves the country should just get that passport and carry it with you at all times and than problem solved. One will have enough headaches and finacial worries just trying to get home with a passport in case of emergency let alone worry about the passpport issue! I think this topic is an overkill! What more can be said...?

[Terpnut]

Undoubtedly, the special passport excemption for cruise ship passengers has created its own set of potential problems.

 

But regardless of whether a cruise ship passenger, who has never had a passport, or a traveler who has had their passport lost or stolen, is stranded in a foreign land there should be an expeditious procedure to get them back onto US soil.

 

If a US citizen has left the US through legimate channels a data base has been created. In the case of cruise ship passenger, the stranded passenger's name will appear on the manifest that was submitted to Immigration prior to sailing. The cruise line even has the passenger's picture to verify their identity.

 

Should this be a free pass or a reason not to get a passport? Absolutely not! We don't, however, agree with the concept that being stranded abroad for days or weeks waiting for a passport to be issued or replaced is a just punishment. Especially when our borders still leak like a rusted out bucket.

 

Anyone, entering the USA via a waiver granted by Immigration authorities should be require to pay a processing fee. For someone who has never had a passport that fee should be $1000. In the case of someone who had their passport lost or stolen the fee should be considerably less, maybe $250.

 

We think that the potential of facing a $1000 per person processing fee would be ample incentive for cruise passengers to obtain passports.

If our mystery procedure for reentering the country without a passport is to be secure, then it can't be expeditious.

[cherylandtk]

I received the following response from a consular agent in Mexico. It appears to me that the 'mystery process' is not going to be shared with us lowly citizens in any sort of detail. And that as Theron noted in another thread, despite the cruise exception exisiting in the regulations, everyone (cruise lines, consular agents, CC board members) prefers that we all travel with a passport.

 

Each case is evaluated on its own merits so I really am not able to give you a definative answer to any of the questions that you pose. The short answer is that we encourage all Americans who travel outside the USA to have a valid passport. This is the surest way in which they can avoid the types of emergency situations that you describe.

[nrdsb4]

I don't know that this definitively answers your question, but here is a case of people without passports in an unforseen situation while cruising. They were not left indefinitely in a foreign land, they were able to get home. However, it was quite pricey and obviously inconvenient. They were not treated as criminals or put through torture in order to get permission back home. Interesting to note that they did have to get passports to come back, they weren't just given a piece of paper giving them a one time pass back into the US.

 

http://www.wftv.com/news/15998021/detail.html

[jerin]

 

 

 

Somehow this has to be implemented into a process, which is what we are trying to find out here...

 

I have a friend who works for a foreign consulate with the state department. He says that what you do is go to (or have the hospital notify) the consulate. They then have a bunch of paperwork to fill out. The waiver request then has to go back to Washington, they have to process it, and then you get your waiver.

 

There is expedited service for medical emergencies. Quickest time he's heard of for a response from Washington is 48 to 72 hours (still a long time if you're waiting in some third world hospital). Usual processing time for non-emergencies (miss the boat) is a week or 2, but they usually give themselves longer when they quote it.

 

He says that if you have a copy of a passport left with someone at home who can fax it where they need it faxed (usually somewhere in the US), you can usually get the replacement in 1-3 days regardless of the circumstances, and can usually get a medical evacuation waiver even faster.

 

He didn't know for sure on the fees, but thought that it was a few hundred dollars.

[TPKeller]

The wheels of government turn slowly, but they do turn.

 

I apologize for the delay in posting this update, but as you will see, I wanted to make sure I had as much clarification as possible before sharing what I have learned.

 

I wrote to Colleen Manaher, who is the Director of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. I asked her to clarify the issue of how one may return home via air, if they are cruising with a birth certificate as proof of citizenship.

 

I was set to post my findings when the whole "Cortes family" incident popped up, which to be honest, did not match what I had just been told. So I wrote again asking for further clarification.

 

Rather than posting all this information here, which can be hard to find, and may have an unpredictable life span, I put together a web page which summarizes the WHTI situation for context, and presents my specific findings.

 

The final word from Ms. Manaher is that you do not have to have a passport to fly home mid-way through a cruise due to an emergent situation. There are policies and procedures in place to utilize the Passport Waiver found in the Final Rules and which we have discussed here.

 

My opinion on the discrepancies between stated policy and our observation is that just like many other situations we have seen, it is taking time for the top level policies to trickle down to the field. Remember the final implementation for the WHTI is not until June 1, 2009.

 

My advice: If you decide to cruise without a passport, learn these policies, perhaps take a copy of the letters from Ms. Manaher (I have provided these on my web page), and keep asking questions until you get the correct answers.

 

And finally, a passport is the best travel document. Nobody disputes this. I strongly advise cruise passengers to get one, especially now that the turnaround time is reported in days, rather than months. The US Government has provided an exception, use it carefully, but please talk about it truthfully.

 

Happy Cruising!

 

Theron

 

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative - What it means for cruising

[Terpnut]

Theron,

 

I still don't see that official policy or procedures. The CBP still has not defined the specific conditions that apply to this exemption, and there is no list the specific steps that CBP officials would take. For example, the CBP still has not defined the "emergent situations" that specifically trigger this exemption, nor does it appear they actually have any official "procedures" for handling it.

 

As the Cortes family discovered, the end result may, or perhaps is even likely, that you must simply get a passport! So, unless I've missed something, I don't see any new information here that helps someone who elects to cruise without their passport. What I see is a bureaucrat saying that she's aware of and has addressed the exemption without proving that anything has actually been done. Is a traveler supposed to be comforted that Ms. Manaher SAYS there are procedures in place when there is no evidence that they actually exist? If I need to fly home with only a birth certificate in hand, will a border agent really care if I show him/her copies of Ms. Manaher's letters with my birth certificate?

 

In summary, I still maintain that, in the absence of any official CBP policy and specific, approved agency procedures, the process is still mostly subjective and likely defaults to border agents/officials making citizens get their passports anyhow (just to be safe)--thus making the exemption virtually worthless in practical terms. IMO, the only thing that puts this debate to bed is the actual policy and procedure, not Ms. Manaher's letter say so.

[TPKeller]

I still don't see...

:)

 

Thanks for the response. At a minimum, your posts are predictably consistent!

 

Theron

[cherylandtk]

I don't know that I would go as far as Terpnut; most policies and procedures followed by CBP or any government agency are not available to the public ( CFR's and underlying regulations, certainly, but not the actual policy manual passed out to the guy or gal working the border inspection station).

 

But in reading the CBP reply, I am struck by the fact that it addresses only the actions of the CBP agents--which requires that a citizen actually arrive at a port of entry. And while Ms. Manaher says the airline personnel have been advised of this CBP exception, there is no law or regulation that says the airlines must make an exception to their passport rules. They can make their own internal rules and policies (and again, don't have to share their policy manuals with us, either) and do not have to accept a passenger without a passport. They may choose to so, and would probably be more likely to if said pax was accompanied by a US official from the local consulate with documentation to the effect that the airline would not be stuck with returning the pax if turned away at the US port of entry. But we don't know in what situations that might happen, if any.

 

The experience of the Cortes family, and the earlier post by the friend of a consulate worker both point to 'emergent' situations taking at least 48 hours, but up to a couple of weeks, to obtain travel permission. I think both that time range and course of action are the likely situation most cruise pax with just a BC will find themselves in should they need to return home in the middle of a cruise. YMMV.

 

Should cruisers decide to travel on just a BC, they need to be aware that a quick return home is unlikely, despite the passport exception in the rules. And that it could take as long as two weeks (the same as current passport processing times) to obtain an emergency use passport. But they will not be left stranded indefinitely. Nor will they get home tomorrow.

 

Lastly, thanks to Theron for following up on this and posting the website for details.

[Terpnut]

:)

 

Thanks for the response. At a minimum, your posts are predictably consistent!

 

Theron

Theron, you started this thread looking for the "real story", to dispel the FUD, and to understand the process by which one would take advantage of the WHTI exemption. So nobody has yet answered your question--especially Ms. Manaher. For all we still know, Ms. Manaher's new procedure is to have CBP employees have stranded U.S. citizens go through the standard passport application process! Until someone show me something otherwise, I will be predictably consistent! :)

Should cruisers decide to travel on just a BC, they need to be aware that a quick return home is unlikely, despite the passport exception in the rules. And that it could take as long as two weeks (the same as current passport processing times) to obtain an emergency use passport. But they will not be left stranded indefinitely. Nor will they get home tomorrow.

Again, if there is an exemption but no clear way to take advantage of it, then for all practical purposes, the exemption is useless. The U.S. government has never left any of its citizens "stranded indefinitely" before or after the WHTI.

[G'ma]

Some areas, like U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, your BC and DL will get you home. From others, it is way more difficult. If you have purchased travel insurance from a reputable company, they can and will assist you with your replacement. The Cruise Agent at where you are stranded will also usually assist but they can NOT expedite a missing passport. They can assist you with air reservations, hotel reservations and such but YOU will have to do the leg work and the travel and the phone calling involved in replacing your passport.

 

From the State department website:

If You Need to Obtain a New Passport While Abroad

 

For information on obtaining a new passport if yours is lost or stolen abroad, see “How to Get Your Passport Replaced” below, under “Emergencies: Consular Assistance and Crises Abroad.” Also visit the Department of State website at http://www.travel.state.gov/passport/lost/us/us_848.html. Additional information is available at http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/emergencies/emergencies_1197.html.

 

How to report and replace a lost or stolen passport while overseas: If you lose your passport while living or traveling abroad, you must immediately contact the closest US Embassy or Consulate to report the loss. You must visit in person and apply for a new passport.