Omitting Place of Birth on a US Passport....

[sachinky 465]

My last two cents on this thread and then I'm outta here:

--If it was a case that ONLY naturalized USCs had to have "place of birth" listed on their passports, then yes, I'd agree with you that this was a case of discrimination but it's not. All USCs are required to have that whether it's Ithaca, New York or Calcutta, India. How you're treated in other countries as a result of that information being listed is not the fault of the U.S. government but the immigration officials of the other country.

--Also remember: Even a natural-born USC might have another birth place, for example, Cairo, Egypt, listed if his parent(s) is/are USC(s) and the mother happened to give birth in Egypt. He is still a natural born USCs by virtue of his parentage.

--Okay, time for a silly analogy: You're born as a black person. Through some surgery you become white. Now when you go back to your old neighborhood you face some talk about "selling out" and such. Now: whose fault is this? Yours for going through the process? Your doctor's for performing the surgery on you? Or your former neighbors for discriminating against you because of your skin color?

--Some of you would be well served to open a political science textbook on the theories of citizenship.

--Any country can place any condition they want on the entry and exit of tourists into that country, especially former citizens. NickD's wife is being practically forced to get a passport of her former country by her former country in order to enter/exit Columbia. Clearly, they do still consider her to be a citizen, otherwise why would they offer her a passport? Now how is any of this supposed to be a problem of the U.S. since they are not the one making these demands?

--Your place of birth along with your date of birth is one of the most basic things that are listed on a passport. Good luck with writing to the U.S. Congress, DOS and ACLU and having that omitted. Like they have nothing better to do. God, by the way you lot are whining, you'd think you were being physically tortured by the immigration officials in your former country -- at the most you have to endure some extra questions or wait a couple of more minutes. Big effin' deal, really. Passports of most countries have "place of birth" listed. You're not going to get them to change that on the US passport just because a few citizens are inconvenienced for a few minutes at the border of their former country. Maybe this will make you realize how most tourists are harassed at the U.S. POEs.

--Next thing you'll want is for the date of birth to be omitted as well--they discriminate against us Geminis! Ok, just kidding!

Edited March 8, 2010 by sachinky

[NickD 203]

My last two cents on this thread and then I'm outta here:

--If it was a case that ONLY naturalized USCs had to have "place of birth" listed on their passports, then yes, I'd agree with you that this was a case of discrimination but it's not. All USCs are required to have that whether it's Ithaca, New York or Calcutta, India. How you're treated in other countries as a result of that information being listed is not the fault of the U.S. government but the immigration officials of the other country.

--Also remember: Even a natural-born USC might have another birth place, for example, Cairo, Egypt, listed if his parent(s) is/are USC(s) and the mother happened to give birth in Egypt. He is still a natural born USCs by virtue of his parentage.

--Okay, time for a silly analogy: You're born as a black person. Through some surgery you become white. Now when you go back to your old neighborhood you face some talk about "selling out" and such. Now: whose fault is this? Yours for going through the process? Your doctor's for performing the surgery on you? Or your former neighbors for discriminating against you because of your skin color?

--Some of you would be well served to open a political science textbook on the theories of citizenship.

--Any country can place any condition they want on the entry and exit of tourists into that country, especially former citizens. NickD's wife is being practically forced to get a passport of her former country by her former country in order to enter/exit Columbia. Clearly, they do still consider her to be a citizen, otherwise why would they offer her a passport? Now how is any of this supposed to be a problem of the U.S. since they are not the one making these demands?

--Your place of birth along with your date of birth is one of the most basic things that are listed on a passport. Good luck with writing to the U.S. Congress, DOS and ACLU and having that omitted. Like they have nothing better to do. God, by the way you lot are whining, you'd think you were being physically tortured by the immigration officials in your former country -- at the most you have to endure some extra questions or wait a couple of more minutes. Big effin' deal, really. Passports of most countries have "place of birth" listed. You're not going to get them to change that on the US passport just because a few citizens are inconvenienced for a few minutes at the border of their former country. Maybe this will make you realize how most tourists are harassed at the U.S. POEs.

--Next thing you'll want is for the date of birth to be omitted as well--they discriminate against us Geminis! Ok, just kidding!

I do not consider it "whining" when you tell your experience exactly the way it is. And being told you are a USC just as if you were born here is indubitably a misrepresentation. Colombia does share a lot in common with the USA, where our country is ran by attorneys, theirs is ran by notaries. But worse, can't just walk into one building with proof of citizenship and get a passport. Send you all over town to get the same exact paperwork you have in your pocket, but has to be done through a notary that slaps a stiff fee for his service. Then every legal document requires an apostile, another piece of paper that claims the very legal document you have with all the seals and stamps on it, is valid. And typically, another couple of hundred bucks, plus a very long wait.

That USA *.pfd file from 1987 showed that 22 out of 25 countries did not feel the place of birth is necessary on your passport. Our congress is making new laws like crazy without even evaluating the effect of the old laws. But just in case that law somehow influences one in a million, won't be popular to change it, so the pile of laws are growing at an exponential rate. Really feel for my grandkids.

[ziia 9]

--If it was a case that ONLY naturalized USCs had to have "place of birth" listed on their passports, then yes, I'd agree with you that this was a case of discrimination but it's not. All USCs are required to have that whether it's Ithaca, New York or Calcutta, India. How you're treated in other countries as a result of that information being listed is not the fault of the U.S. government but the immigration officials of the other country.

Well, the US is the country who puts that on the passport, so the issue starts from there. Sure the blame splits in two, but what are you going to do? Start "fighting" with the bureaucracy and lawlessness of each poor country you go to and then come to US and tell your friends about your bad experience at the POE of that said country? Sure, that's exactly what you do. On top of that, many aren't even aware why the officers at the POE give them a hard time. It's not like you can ask them: "Hey mr. officer why are you being so rude with me and treat me in such unfair way" so that he can answer: "Well, you know, I am upset because I see you were born here and now you have a better life and me, I'm just still stuck in this country trying to make ends meat, so I envy your luck and take my frustration on you, traitor". I mean, come on...right? Who's gonna tell you that? The only reason why so many people deal with discrimination overseas or bad treatment or bureaucracy is exactly because of this issue I stated above. If anything, I know how people in my country think. That is why it is called a 3rd world country in the first place. Not because we don't have fancy cars, running water, nice buildings and other riches US has. We have all that! It's because the mentality, the system, the human rights are way behind US's. Try to make a complain over there...HA! Good luck with that! They're going to laugh right in your face, they're going to think you're the most hilarious person in the world and send you packing with the tail between your legs for having the audacity to ask for a human right and not handing over some stack of Washingtons' nicely put together with a rubber elastic lol. That reason is why so many people opt to better live here and not there. So if this small insignificant issue like removing the country of birth off the passport(picture) and integrating it solely into the chip, would help avoid so much headache, then why not? It's a US Passport, not an international one.

--Okay, time for a silly analogy: You're born as a black person. Through some surgery you become white. Now when you go back to your old neighborhood you face some talk about "selling out" and such. Now: whose fault is this? Yours for going through the process? Your doctor's for performing the surgery on you? Or your former neighbors for discriminating against you because of your skin color?

That's a silly comparison and you know it. Skin color is not exactly an option you can change in the blink of eye...it requires year of treatment, first of all psychological and then physical. You're talking about altering a person and we are talking about altering a piece of paper with some plastic in it. Big difference. But as a response of what you said, i'd say the ONLY racist is the person who is changing their skin color. Not to mention he would have to have his head checked because if anything requires surgery is their brain. I can assure you no one would be discriminating against this guy because if he's that crazy to have such a surgery then pretty much everyone would be freaked out about his state of mind. None the less, he's the racist. The rest(people judging him) are a products(an effect) of HIS DOING. Sure, he can sue them and win money but that's not the point. The point is where the issue starts: him.

--Any country can place any condition they want on the entry and exit of tourists into that country, especially former citizens. NickD's wife is being practically forced to get a passport of her former country by her former country in order to enter/exit Columbia. Clearly, they do still consider her to be a citizen, otherwise why would they offer her a passport? Now how is any of this supposed to be a problem of the U.S. since they are not the one making these demands?

They issue the Passport, they have control over what's in there and what's not. Why fight everyone when you can have this simple issue resolved where it started in the first place?

--Your place of birth along with your date of birth is one of the most basic things that are listed on a passport. Good luck with writing to the U.S. Congress, DOS and ACLU and having that omitted. Like they have nothing better to do. God, by the way you lot are whining, you'd think you were being physically tortured by the immigration officials in your former country -- at the most you have to endure some extra questions or wait a couple of more minutes. Big effin' deal, really. Passports of most countries have "place of birth" listed. You're not going to get them to change that on the US passport just because a few citizens are inconvenienced for a few minutes at the border of their former country. Maybe this will make you realize how most tourists are harassed at the U.S. POEs.

That's like..your opinion, man. I am speaking as a USC that was born overseas. Were you born overseas too? If not, then it's our issue to deal with. If it wasn't for people like me and Nick's wife and And and others, you wouldn't have all the rights and protection you have in this country. ACLU was formed exactly for issues like that to be dealt with.

--Next thing you'll want is for the date of birth to be omitted as well--they discriminate against us Geminis! Ok, just kidding!

Mocking by comprising and dismissing our views on this is so not cool. Still, it's your right

Edited March 8, 2010 by ziia

[NickD 203]

Ironically, key identification parameters are not listed like your height and weight, your age can be considered an identifying parameter as well as your sex as with some people, not disclosed by their photograph. Photograph should indicate your race, but strictly to identify you and that indeed is your passport, but your race is not listed verbally on the passport.

Do not feel any of our physical characteristics insuring our passports are indeed ours would be objectionable to anyone.

But just give one logical reason, why one's place of birth is listed! Not two or three reasons, just ONE!

[Sc0tt28 26]

This is exactly what we call here in America, profiling(fine line to discrimination by the way). As far as I know IT IS FORBIDDEN and there are laws and huge grounds for lawsuits against this kind of "suspicions"(because of color of skin or country of birth). Sure, if profiling would have been ok in US, you'd have a valid point. But as far as I and the law in this country is concerned, you don't. Don't you hear at the news old white ladies get super screened because at the US POE they can't pull over only darker colored man? It's exactly for that reason: lawsuits!

Having the birth place in the US passport helps solely for what another poster pointed out: it eases the process to enter US at the POE for people who might have the same names. It is NOT there for the purpose of "suspicion" on the part of the immigration officer. There is a huge difference between the duties of an immigration officer at the POE and a CIA agent that deals with overseas terrorism. They might work together at some level, so I understand why they would want to keep the country of birth on the US Passport but what I don't understand is why they don't incorporate that in that chip they have on the cover, where they can only see that information and other countries not. Unless there is a mutual understanding between the US gvmt. and other countries gvmts. that we are not aware of, like a FOIA of some sort to ensure they work together on a mutual opened level against international terrorism, then I would see the point. Still, if there's no such act or understanding or it's no longer "valid", then they should remove the country of birth off the page and integrate it solely into the Passport chip to ensure US Citizens that were born overseas, of a smooth entry and equal fair treatment equal to those of any US citizen born on this land, at the POE of any and every country IMHO.

The race or color or whatever is not my concern, therefore, it is not profiling. The lie of omission is what I'm concerned about. Like I said, I don't care if you were born in Iran, dressed in a burka, chanting "allah akbar", if you show me a US passport that says where you were born (Iran) and you just returned from grandma's house, then have a nice day and welcome home.

Let's look at a different scenario though. Same person using his US passport but returning from Cairo. After some digging, border patrol finds out that he took a flight from Tehran to Cairo using his Iranian passport. After even more digging, they find out that he went there to meet with members of Al-Qaida. News flash for you....that's not profiling.

Here's the definition: Profiling is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime or an illegal act or to behave in a "predictable" manner.

Wanting to know where someone was born does not mean I'm going to use that information to determine whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime. However, withholding that information when there is no reason to do so does not mean its ok to profile that person but it is ok to ask the question "why?".

Asking the question "Why?" is not profiling.

[ziia 9]

I don't care if you were born in Iran, dressed in a burka, chanting "allah akbar", if you show me a US passport that says where you were born (Iran) and you just returned from grandma's house, then have a nice day and welcome home.

First of all, you're starting to scare me lol...just kidding :o Let's leave it to that lol

Let's look at a different scenario though. Same person using his US passport but returning from Cairo. After some digging, border patrol finds out that he took a flight from Tehran to Cairo using his Iranian passport. After even more digging, they find out that he went there to meet with members of Al-Qaida. News flash for you....that's not profiling.

We are talking about people being mistreated at the POE of foreign countries, not returning to US.

How would an immigration officer "find out" that someone has been meeting with terrorist members, if you don't mind me asking? That is not the job duty of an immigration officer but of the CIA. CIA can send that list of names to the POE of US and from there they decide what to do. How would having the country of birth JUST on the electronic chip and not painted on the first page with bright big colors prevent the US from finding out the information they already have anyway TWICE(on the chip when they scan the Passport AND inside painted on the cover)? we say remove that and leave it on the chip only

Here's the definition: Profiling is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime or an illegal act or to behave in a "predictable" manner.

So then let me ask you...on what grounds, or better said how would you pick the people you'd "suspect" and raise the question "what are you hiding?".

Do you actually think that that's the "job" of an immigration officer at the POE? Sure if the name shows up with big huge red letters SUSPECTED TERRORIST on their screen when they scan the name and it matches that off the list the CIA sent them, then they take the appropriate measures and digg as you said in that person's details. But if nothing shows up on the screen and the plane obviously landed safely to the destination already lol lol then your "suspicion" has no basis and therefore falls into the profiling category and that would bring that officer into the courts for a nice lawsuit by a smart enough lawyer and a distressed enough tired passenger who doesn't feel like it's the immigration's officer job to play "big brother" without a very good reason to back it up. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the Border Security measures and safety against possible terrorists. I just don't see how having the country of birth solely on the electronic chip would create such an inconvenience.

However, withholding that information when there is no reason to do so does not mean its ok to profile that person but it is ok to ask the question "why?".

Asking the question "Why?" is not profiling.

If you are friends with a person or you are applying for a job and you're granted an interview, they can ask "why".They can also ask "why" before they issue the passport and he/she can put an explanation the form he submits before that passport is issued. Why is ok to ask when you obtain something(a service, a visa, a whatever)....why is not ok to ask just because the immigration officer at the POE feels like it, for his own personal knowledge. It has to have a reason for that suspicion and if that reason is not sustained by a good backed up with proof reason to suspect somethings wrong, then it's not that officer's business what my personal reason is to have the country of birth not showing in there. If a US passport was already issued to me and they granted me the option to not have the country of birth showing in it, then if a nosy immigration officer asks me "why?" I will kindly ask him "why do you care to know? Am I a suspect of some sort?" According to what his answer would be, which I doubt he'd manage to figure out a good reason for asking me that, then I would continue by telling him that "it is personal". And if that officer doesn't have a very good reason to hold me there for more questions like that, then I'd be chatting with his manager. You don't have to answer to why is it's none of their business and it is my personal choice and my name doesn't show up on their screen as a possible terrorist or something. If it would, I'm sure they wouldn't kindly ask me "why" but shake me really well with more difficult questions in that tiny interrogation room of theirs.

Edited March 9, 2010 by ziia

[sachinky 465]

Ok, I know I said I'd be gone but this is an interesting discussion so I'm going to overstay my welcome.

Just to clarify: I'm the non-USC spouse in the picture so I have no personal stake in this whatsoever. I'm an Indian citizen now and will be at least for the next three years. We'll see how we feel after 3 years. However, my citizenship should not be a factor in this discussion.

Also, I actually think the chip idea is a good solution to the "problem" posed here. I have no issue with that -- of course I don't think a couple of well worded petitions with a couple of signatures is going to change anything--but hey, that's my cynical opinion! You're all most welcome to send those in and good luck. I admire idealists. I suspect you're not going to find too many takers for this--so far, I've only seen Colombia and Romania mentioned as problem countries. I don't see U.S. passports being overhauled just because a few citizens are inconvenienced at the immigration line in a few countries. As I mentioned for India, and I'm willing to bet it is true for MANY countries, that a U.S. passport actually gets you better service/special treatment.

My original and only issue was this notion that was mentioned in the first couple of pages that somehow mentioning this "place of birth" on a US passport is tantamount to discrimination by the U.S. government against its naturalized citizens. It's not. No matter how you spin it. Or that somehow naturalized citizens are as good as / or even better than the natural born citizens. Simple point in question: the POTUS. Naturalized citizens cannot run for POTUS. Why not? Because it is believed and expressed in several political and philosophical theories of citizenship that naturalized citizens do NOT feel the same allegiance towards the U.S.A as a natural born citizen does and does not have the same patriotic fervor that comes being born on the soil of a certain country. If you have a problem with this, then that's fine. Now you can take the matter up with the Supreme Court. If not, then you're accepting that this is true. Naturalization is not a right, as some have said they feel, it is a privilege that is earned via $, time, and meeting certain criteria. It's not the same as being born in the U.S. I'd think this is quite obvious. Arguments of fairness and equality don't hold when it's not a guaranteed right.

Edited March 9, 2010 by sachinky

[sachinky 465]

"That's like..your opinion, man. I am speaking as a USC that was born overseas. Were you born overseas too? If not, then it's our issue to deal with. If it wasn't for people like me and Nick's wife and And and others, you wouldn't have all the rights and protection you have in this country. ACLU was formed exactly for issues like that to be dealt with."

Really, zia? Care to elaborate on this point?

Now using my silly black to white analogy. Maybe I should've explained it better -- You're born as a black person (in one country). Through some surgery you become white (a citizen of another country). For whatever reason that may be--you think they are accorded more respect (U.S. passport) or you are married to a white person (American spouse) or it makes life just a little more convenient for you. Or you would like to become a bonafide member and participate fully and integrate into this new culture. Whatever, pick one. Now when you go back to your old neighborhood (former country) you face some talk about "selling out" and such (ill-treatment/discrimination). Now: whose fault is this? Yours for going through the process (the person who undergoes naturalization)? Your doctor's for performing the surgery on you (the U.S. government who grants you the privilege)? Or your former neighbors for discriminating against you because of your skin color (immigration officials in your former country)?

Of course, I thought the answer was quite clear that it is the fault of your former neighbors for discriminating against you based on your skin color. But since you seem to think it is the person who went through procedure is responsible for his fate, then I'd have to say then that's the "fault" of the person who naturalized as well. You were a Romanian who became an American after going through a process encompassing many years and many dollars. You are now entitled to the perks that come with being an American citizen (for example, visiting several countries without any visa). Unfortunately, being ill treated at the Romanian border is also a part of the package now because they think you sold out in someway or are jealous of you, or whatever. You gotta take the bad with the good. I still don't see how the "doctor" is reponsible in any way.

Edited March 9, 2010 by sachinky

[NickD 203]

"That's like..your opinion, man. I am speaking as a USC that was born overseas. Were you born overseas too? If not, then it's our issue to deal with. If it wasn't for people like me and Nick's wife and And and others, you wouldn't have all the rights and protection you have in this country. ACLU was formed exactly for issues like that to be dealt with."

Really, zia? Care to elaborate on this point?

Now using my silly black to white analogy. Maybe I should've explained it better -- You're born as a black person (in one country). Through some surgery you become white (a citizen of another country). For whatever reason that may be--you think they are accorded more respect (U.S. passport) or you are married to a white person (American spouse) or it makes life just a little more convenient for you. Or you would like to become a bonafide member and participate fully and integrate into this new culture. Whatever, pick one. Now when you go back to your old neighborhood (former country) you face some talk about "selling out" and such (ill-treatment/discrimination). Now: whose fault is this? Yours for going through the process (the person who undergoes naturalization)? Your doctor's for performing the surgery on you (the U.S. government who grants you the privilege)? Or your former neighbors for discriminating against you because of your skin color (immigration officials in your former country)?

Of course, I thought the answer was quite clear that it is the fault of your former neighbors for discriminating against you based on your skin color. But since you seem to think it is the person who went through procedure is responsible for his fate, then I'd have to say then that's the "fault" of the person who naturalized as well. You were a Romanian who became an American after going through a process encompassing many years and many dollars. You are now entitled to the perks that come with being an American citizen (for example, visiting several countries without any visa). Unfortunately, being ill treated at the Romanian border is also a part of the package now because they think you sold out in someway or are jealous of you, or whatever. You gotta take the bad with the good. I still don't see how the "doctor" is reponsible in any way.

Sachinky, I find your arguments to be loaded with assumptions, ridiculous, and absurb, the subject is the DOS putting a persons place of birth on their passport. And you yet have to provide any logical reason for justifying this procedure.

A person applying for USC has taken an oath to be allegiant to this country, and to serve it and defend it, even in time of war, pay taxes and comparing a person to one that is a natural born citizen being more allegiant to this country is ludicrous. Thousands of natural born citizens left this country to avoid being drafted during the Viet Nam war. Your arguments do not carry any weight.

Speaking of taking an oath, at the ripe old age of 18 and being drafted, was forced to take an oath to defend this country, if I didn't as well as others, would have been tossed in jail. My wife and others have freely taken an oath to serve this country. If a person natural born or naturalized refuses to serve their country, it doesn't make any difference, either will have to face the consequences, but that will be dealt with at that time if this ever occurs.

In my wife's situation, all we want to do is to visit her family once a year, she is no longer allegiant to Colombia, she is a USC! But because her place of birth is placed by our DOS on her US passport, Colombia is putting a claim on her and we are forced to comply with their laws so she can visit her family. At great expense, we had to update her Colombian ID and now wait up to a year to get her new ID. Then make a long trip to Chicago to force her to get a Colombian passport.

I think it's fair and reasonable for me to ask, why? If Colombia wanted us to get a visa, both her and I, to visit their country, that is their option. We will have to get that visa.

[sachinky 465]

Sachinky, I find your arguments to be loaded with assumptions, ridiculous, and absurb, the subject is the DOS putting a persons place of birth on their passport. And you yet have to provide any logical reason for justifying this procedure.

A person applying for USC has taken an oath to be allegiant to this country, and to serve it and defend it, even in time of war, pay taxes and comparing a person to one that is a natural born citizen being more allegiant to this country is ludicrous. Thousands of natural born citizens left this country to avoid being drafted during the Viet Nam war. Your arguments do not carry any weight.

Speaking of taking an oath, at the ripe old age of 18 and being drafted, was forced to take an oath to defend this country, if I didn't as well as others, would have been tossed in jail. My wife and others have freely taken an oath to serve this country. If a person natural born or naturalized refuses to serve their country, it doesn't make any difference, either will have to face the consequences, but that will be dealt with at that time if this ever occurs.

In my wife's situation, all we want to do is to visit her family once a year, she is no longer allegiant to Colombia, she is a USC! But because her place of birth is placed by our DOS on her US passport, Colombia is putting a claim on her and we are forced to comply with their laws so she can visit her family. At great expense, we had to update her Colombian ID and now wait up to a year to get her new ID. Then make a long trip to Chicago to force her to get a Colombian passport.

I think it's fair and reasonable for me to ask, why? If Colombia wanted us to get a visa, both her and I, to visit their country, that is their option. We will have to get that visa.

Which of my arguments do you find to be ridiculous and absurd? I conceded that black to white argument was silly, I was just trying to draw an analogy. What have I assumed? The argument regarding allegiance and sovereignty is often made by political science experts so really, this is not my argument at all and I wouldn't dream of taking credit for it (if you were referring to the POTUS argument). It has its roots in the U.S. Constitution and if you have a problem with that, you're going to have to take it up with the Supreme Court. So, let me ask you: why aren't naturalized USC allowed to run for POTUS since acccording to you, they are the same and equal and are in fact, more deserving than the draft dodgers since they have voluntarily taken the oath?

Why do I have to justify anything? There really is no logical justification to putting anything on a passport apart from a picture to show that the person in possession of the passport is really you. However, all these things are parameters of identification. So what great justification do you have for putting someone's date of birth on a passport? Why is that necessary at all? The place of birth, like everything else, is just another category. I don't know if "parent's name/spouse's name" is listed on a US passport, but it is on Indian passports. What's the use of listing that? What if your father is a terrorist but you have absolutely nothing to do with him. (Similar argument to what you guys are making--I have given up my former citizenship, so what use is that place of birth? If you have renounced ties with your father, does that change the fact that, he is, in fact your father? Should we remove that as well, since most likely said individual is going to face discrimination and be inconvenienced due to the fact that his father's name is listed?) Oh man, another absurd argument, right? Passports of different countries use different categories, some explicitly state physical features, some require permanent address. You can rage and rant all you want, it's not gonna change.

Again, these demands on your wife are being made by the Colombian government, not the U.S. government. To the U.S. government, she is just a USC, they are not the ones asking her to maintain a Colombian passport. Maybe you should be raging and ranting against them, instead. Like I said, I don't see U.S. passports being overhauled just because a few former Colombian citizens are being inconvenienced.

To reiterate, my original and only issue was this notion that was mentioned in the first couple of pages that somehow mentioning this "place of birth" on a US passport is tantamount to discrimination by the U.S. government against its naturalized citizens. It's not. No matter how you spin it.

Edited March 9, 2010 by sachinky

[NickD 203]

Which of my arguments do you find to be ridiculous and absurd? I conceded that black to white argument was silly, I was just trying to draw an analogy. What have I assumed? The argument regarding allegiance and sovereignty is often made by political science experts so really, this is not my argument at all and I wouldn't dream of taking credit for it (if you were referring to the POTUS argument). It has its roots in the U.S. Constitution and if you have a problem with that, you're going to have to take it up with the Supreme Court. So, let me ask you: why aren't naturalized USC allowed to run for POTUS since acccording to you, they are the same and equal and are in fact, more deserving than the draft dodgers since they have voluntarily taken the oath?

Why do I have to justify anything? There really is no logical justification to putting anything on a passport apart from a picture to show that the person in possession of the passport is really you. However, all these things are parameters of identification. So what great justification do you have for putting someone's date of birth on a passport? Why is that necessary at all? The place of birth, like everything else, is just another category. I don't know if "parent's name/spouse's name" is listed on a US passport, but it is on Indian passports. What's the use of listing that? What if your father is a terrorist but you have absolutely nothing to do with him. (Similar argument to what you guys are making--I have given up my former citizenship, so what use is that place of birth? If you have renounced ties with your father, does that change the fact that, he is, in fact your father? Should we remove that as well, since most likely said individual is going to face discrimination and be inconvenienced due to the fact that his father's name is listed?) Oh man, another absurd argument, right? Passports of different countries use different categories, some explicitly state physical features, some require permanent address. You can rage and rant all you want, it's not gonna change.

Again, these demands on your wife are being made by the Colombian government, not the U.S. government. To the U.S. government, she is just a USC, they are not the ones asking her to maintain a Colombian passport. Maybe you should be raging and ranting against them, instead. Like I said, I don't see U.S. passports being overhauled just because a few former Colombian citizens are being inconvenienced.

To reiterate, my original and only issue was this notion that was mentioned in the first couple of pages that somehow mentioning this "place of birth" on a US passport is tantamount to discrimination by the U.S. government against its naturalized citizens. It's not. No matter how you spin it.

Let's keep this discussion simple, what the other 200 some odd countries elect to put on their passports is of absolutely no concern to me, nor to you, it's MY country that I am only concerned about.

An the act of putting a persons place of birth on the US passport, the only passport of concern to us is in direct contrast to the oath a person has to take to become a USC. Either they are citizens of the USA or they are not, it's that simple.

[sachinky 465]

Ok, you didn't answer my previous questions but that's fine. We'll let that go for the purposes of keeping this discussion simple.

I fail to understand how having the place of birth listed on the U.S. passport a direct contradication to the oath you take in order to become a USC. You might swear allegiance solely to the U.S. but just because you become a USC through naturalization (again, different from natural-born) your place of birth doesn't change from Cairo, Egypt to Kent, OH. Neither does your date of birth change to your date of naturalization, no matter how spiritually you feel like you were "reborn." Your place of birth and date of birth are incontrovertible FACTS that will remain with you, for life, no matter how much you dislike it or it inconveniences you.

Again, the demands on your wife are being made by the Colombian government, not the U.S. They are not the ones asking her to maintain a Colombian passport -- the U.S. government in fact treats her like any other citizen, who ALSO have to have the place of birth listed on their respective passports. As of now, I've seen Romania and Colombia listed as problem countries, and the latter is clearly making unreasonable demands. I'm willing to bet, however, that most other naturalized USCs have no trouble travelling to the country of their birth. In most other countries of the world, a U.S. passport will most likely guarantee you special preference. Naturalized USCs pass through Indian immigration with no problem--they are not forced to take an Indian passport or produce any Indian government issued ID.

Yes, your wife is a USC, with all the rights and privileges that come with it but as a naturalized citizen, she is subject to a different procedure (naturalization process) than you (your mother giving birth to you) and exempt from the post of the POTUS, unlike you.

[NickD 203]

We are spending both the time and money to satisfy the Colombian requirements, my wife wants to see her family. But am I permitted to ask why? If her place of birth was not on her passport, we would not have this problem.

Place of birth does not have anything to do with the race, culture, nor nationality of the person in terms of identification, age does. So why is the place of birth even on the US passport? Has to be a reason, would simply like to know what that reason is.

Only thing I can find out about our DOS, they do recognize "dual nationality", but because the place of birth is listed on her US passport, she is forced to maintain her citizenship in Colombia that she really does not want to do. But has to, if she wants to visit her family.

Can look at this in two different ways, Colombian law that I can't do a damn thing about, or our own DOS that I have the right as a USC to complain about. Have done the latter by writing to my president, congressman, senator, and the ACLU. Perhaps not an issue with them, been a whole month now and not even one reply.

Do have another option as well, say the hell to the USA and move to Colombia, they would love to have me as well.

[MoroccanInTexas 24]

My 2 cents here. As I said before, the government can put in the passport : Place of Birth-Naturalization. This way you are born again American. Trust me the government, or the US POE officers have their ways to know if you are naturalized or born here. So adjusting that line will just make life easy for a lot of people.

On another note, the debate about who is more patriotic, and who can or can not run for a president, is more for a law class...

My point is simple, if adjusting that line to reflect the place of birth or naturalization wont cause security concerns, then why not make life easier for a lot of people.

[ziia 9]

"That's like..your opinion, man. I am speaking as a USC that was born overseas. Were you born overseas too? If not, then it's our issue to deal with. If it wasn't for people like me and Nick's wife and And and others, you wouldn't have all the rights and protection you have in this country. ACLU was formed exactly for issues like that to be dealt with."

Really, zia? Care to elaborate on this point?

Actually I do but I don't need to say much because everything can be captured in a few words: American Civil Liberties Union.

Of course, I thought the answer was quite clear that it is the fault of your former neighbors for discriminating against you based on your skin color. But since you seem to think it is the person who went through procedure is responsible for his fate, then I'd have to say then that's the "fault" of the person who naturalized as well. You were a Romanian who became an American after going through a process encompassing many years and many dollars. You are now entitled to the perks that come with being an American citizen (for example, visiting several countries without any visa). Unfortunately, being ill treated at the Romanian border is also a part of the package now because they think you sold out in someway or are jealous of you, or whatever. You gotta take the bad with the good. I still don't see how the "doctor" is reponsible in any way.

You explained yourself pretty good but in my opinion you are comparing apples to lettuce. If a small thing like removing the country of birth off the US Passport page would spare people of much headaches at the POE of other countries, then why not start with where the problem starts? In US-because it's a US document!! Ok, let me give you an example: If you have bugs coming in your house through a hole in the basement, what do you do?( Let's assume when you bought the house, the hole was there, it came with the house) Do you fight every bug that walks through the hole or deal with the main problem, which is not the bugs but the actual hole and cover it? By what you say, you might take time dealing with every bug one by one as it comes in...Isn't that a waist of time and energy...when you can easily get some bug spray, some cement and voila! you fixed the problem where the problem started. It's not the bug's fault, your house had a hole in it lol. I mean seriously, if you want to start with goofy examples, i'll fight your examples with other examples and we can go back and forth until tomorrow morning or until we get exhausted lol.

Let's focus instead on the subject: The US Passport and what's in it not silly analogies between a piece of paper containing personal information and people who undergo skin changing surgeries or bugs in the house.

It is not other countries business what US chooses to put in the Passports they release for its citizens!! If you are overseas and someone steals your US Passport, aside from going to the Police, you also go to the US Embassy in that country to straighten out the issue so you can go back. You do that because you are a USC and that Passport is a US passport! You wouldn't go around the Indian Embassy to ask for an American Passport or a way back just because the Indian people stole your ID, right? That is exactly why me and the rest of the people find that the correct way to go about this is take the issue we have with the US Government not us against the whole wide world overseas.

Like Nick said, at POE they can identify people by the name, picture, DOB, fingerprints, eye scan or whatever. They can also keep the country of birth in the electronic chip only for the officers at the POE in US to see in case there's an issue. It should not be for other countries POE officers to see...it's none of their business what information US chooses to put in the Passports they release for its citizens. What we are asking is that we are all USC's so we should be treated all the same. If the country of birth raises problems for us when we travel, US should do something about that, period! At the end, we are equal and we all took the Oath to give up any allegiance to the former countries. US Gvmt should stick to what they ask new citizens to swear on. Having the country of birth there creates a form of allegiance(tie) to the former country we apparently don't want because of the inconveniences it raises. Can't get more clear than that

Edited March 9, 2010 by ziia