4 ms·

Comparing an ID with "travel papers" is silly. An ID is an identification device given to everyone who wants one. "Travel papers" are licenses to travel. IDs a

Comparing an ID with "travel papers" is silly. An ID is an identification device given to everyone who wants one. "Travel papers" are licenses to travel. IDs are a tiny restriction on your freedom. Travel papers are a major restriction on your freedom. The stupid airfare taxes are a much bigger restriction on our freedom, IMO.

imglorp 12y ago
Three words: No Fly List. There is no transparency to that process, no way to find out if you're on it, no appeal, no recourse. That's tantamount to license to travel if not worse.
- yasth 12y ago
  There is an appeal process, and just recently you are now generally notified if you are on it. http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/04/14/us-to-tell-certain-travelers-if-on-no-fly-list http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/04/14/us-t... That doesn't mean it is perfect (far from it), but things have gotten (slowly) better.
- IgorPartola 12y ago
  So you are saying that the current no fly list is as bad as having to apply for a license to travel every time you intend to? They are different things. When the government says "you must apply for a license before you do X" it means you are denied until permitted. The current implementation of the no fly list seems to be "permitted until denied". That isn't to say the process of getting on/off the list is good, just that it's not nearly as bad as being denied by default.
- rhino369 12y ago
  I don't really want to argue in support of the no-fly list because I think it is definitely unconstitutional (in current form), but it is still not a license to travel. It's a black list compared to a white list (travel papers). This makes a huge difference as the default is that you are allowed to travel. Instead of having to convince some bureaucrat that you should be allowed to travel, the government just blocks a relatively small number of people from traveling. Only 500 Americans are on the list. So 1.5 x10^-4 percent of Americans are limited by it. Also, no fly list only applies to one method of travel. You can still drive, train, or walk anywhere you want.
  - CWuestefeld 12y ago
    the default is that you are allowed to travel I disagree with that interpretation. In fact, there is no default as such. You are required to demonstrate your identity in order to show that you're not one of those people. So you can't just fall into the default condition. So 1.5 x10^-4 percent of Americans are limited by it. Abridging the rights of a small number is still abridging rights. The philosophy of the USA, as demonstrated in the Bill of Rights, is supposed to be that minorities, even individuals, have their rights protected from the tyranny of the majority.
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    No. According to the Justice Department itself: "Last fall, there were about 64,000 people on the no-fly list, according to the government. Typically, less than 5 percent of those on the list are Americans. The list fluctuates in size." That's at least 3,000 American -citizens-. Many of those on the list are legal permanent residents, many more than citizens (as immigrants).
    - rhino369 12y ago
      I got 500 from a CNN article dated today. Less than 5% can be 1% or 4%. Either way its still virtually nobody.
rmxt 12y ago
The post's entire point is that IDs are de facto travel papers. The reasons why we object to photo ID at vote time should also apply to general intra-US travel (or at least intrastate travel).
- rhino369 12y ago
  And my point is that travel papers aren't just something you need to travel with. It's a permission for specific travel. You can argue that requiring an ID for traveling on a plane is too restrictive, but it's not travel papers.
  - albedoa 12y ago
    Not trying to argue here, just trying to understand you. At the point where ID is required, it becomes de facto permission for that specific travel, no? Without ID, that travel is denied. (Or at least, that's the author's point.)
    - marcosdumay 12y ago
      It becomes permission for travel in general, not specific. Also, it only becomes any kind of restriction if there is any restriction on the issuing of ID (either practical, economical or legal). As always, the details are more important than the big picture.
mikeash 12y ago
What's the difference, exactly? "Travel papers" are used to control whether or not you're allowed to travel. ID checks are also used to control whether or not you're allowed to travel. (For example, one use of ID checks for air travel is to check the traveler against the government's no-fly list.) Are you just saying that the requirements aren't currently restrictive enough to be worth complaining about? Because I only see a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.
- rhino369 12y ago
  Permission vs. just to identify who I am. I can drive to the airport right now and fly wherever I want. I don't need it approved by government.
  - dbrunton 12y ago
    Tell that to someone on the no fly list.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I can drive to the airport right now and fly to China without doing any prior paperwork. That doesn't mean I don't need it approved by the government, that just means I already got it approved and the approval is still valid. If I didn't have that visa, I'd have to go get one before I can fly to China. Likewise, if you didn't have an ID, you'd have to go get one before you can fly at all. But I do have that visa, and you do have that ID, so we don't have to do anything more. You need papers, and you can be prevented from flying if they don't want you to. I don't see the qualitative difference, just the quantitative one that a state ID is a lot easier to get than a visa.
- ubernostrum 12y ago
  Airlines tend to like having ID checks pseudo-imposed upon them, as a way of enforcing non-transferability of tickets.

imglorp 12y ago

Three words: No Fly List. There is no transparency to that process, no way to find out if you're on it, no appeal, no recourse. That's tantamount to license to travel if not worse.

yasth 12y ago
There is an appeal process, and just recently you are now generally notified if you are on it. http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/04/14/us-to-tell-certain-travelers-if-on-no-fly-list http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/04/14/us-t... That doesn't mean it is perfect (far from it), but things have gotten (slowly) better.
IgorPartola 12y ago
So you are saying that the current no fly list is as bad as having to apply for a license to travel every time you intend to? They are different things. When the government says "you must apply for a license before you do X" it means you are denied until permitted. The current implementation of the no fly list seems to be "permitted until denied". That isn't to say the process of getting on/off the list is good, just that it's not nearly as bad as being denied by default.
rhino369 12y ago
I don't really want to argue in support of the no-fly list because I think it is definitely unconstitutional (in current form), but it is still not a license to travel. It's a black list compared to a white list (travel papers). This makes a huge difference as the default is that you are allowed to travel. Instead of having to convince some bureaucrat that you should be allowed to travel, the government just blocks a relatively small number of people from traveling. Only 500 Americans are on the list. So 1.5 x10^-4 percent of Americans are limited by it. Also, no fly list only applies to one method of travel. You can still drive, train, or walk anywhere you want.
- CWuestefeld 12y ago
  the default is that you are allowed to travel I disagree with that interpretation. In fact, there is no default as such. You are required to demonstrate your identity in order to show that you're not one of those people. So you can't just fall into the default condition. So 1.5 x10^-4 percent of Americans are limited by it. Abridging the rights of a small number is still abridging rights. The philosophy of the USA, as demonstrated in the Bill of Rights, is supposed to be that minorities, even individuals, have their rights protected from the tyranny of the majority.
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  No. According to the Justice Department itself: "Last fall, there were about 64,000 people on the no-fly list, according to the government. Typically, less than 5 percent of those on the list are Americans. The list fluctuates in size." That's at least 3,000 American -citizens-. Many of those on the list are legal permanent residents, many more than citizens (as immigrants).
  - rhino369 12y ago
    I got 500 from a CNN article dated today. Less than 5% can be 1% or 4%. Either way its still virtually nobody.

rmxt 12y ago

The post's entire point is that IDs are de facto travel papers. The reasons why we object to photo ID at vote time should also apply to general intra-US travel (or at least intrastate travel).

rhino369 12y ago
And my point is that travel papers aren't just something you need to travel with. It's a permission for specific travel. You can argue that requiring an ID for traveling on a plane is too restrictive, but it's not travel papers.
- albedoa 12y ago
  Not trying to argue here, just trying to understand you. At the point where ID is required, it becomes de facto permission for that specific travel, no? Without ID, that travel is denied. (Or at least, that's the author's point.)
  - marcosdumay 12y ago
    It becomes permission for travel in general, not specific. Also, it only becomes any kind of restriction if there is any restriction on the issuing of ID (either practical, economical or legal). As always, the details are more important than the big picture.

mikeash 12y ago

What's the difference, exactly? "Travel papers" are used to control whether or not you're allowed to travel. ID checks are also used to control whether or not you're allowed to travel. (For example, one use of ID checks for air travel is to check the traveler against the government's no-fly list.) Are you just saying that the requirements aren't currently restrictive enough to be worth complaining about? Because I only see a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

rhino369 12y ago
Permission vs. just to identify who I am. I can drive to the airport right now and fly wherever I want. I don't need it approved by government.
- dbrunton 12y ago
  Tell that to someone on the no fly list.
- mikeash 12y ago
  I can drive to the airport right now and fly to China without doing any prior paperwork. That doesn't mean I don't need it approved by the government, that just means I already got it approved and the approval is still valid. If I didn't have that visa, I'd have to go get one before I can fly to China. Likewise, if you didn't have an ID, you'd have to go get one before you can fly at all. But I do have that visa, and you do have that ID, so we don't have to do anything more. You need papers, and you can be prevented from flying if they don't want you to. I don't see the qualitative difference, just the quantitative one that a state ID is a lot easier to get than a visa.
ubernostrum 12y ago
Airlines tend to like having ID checks pseudo-imposed upon them, as a way of enforcing non-transferability of tickets.