Child Suffered Due to Lack of Passports

[capriccio]

2 hours ago, ducklite said:

Yep.  Here's what happens when US citizens are stranded in a foreign country without the means to become repatriated.  The US Department of State pays for a ticket.  The person stranded needs to sign what is basically loan paperwork to the US government.  They are given a period of time, typically not to exceed 90 days to repay it.  After that the government can take action against them.  Their passport will be revoked, their tax returns and even bank accounts will be seized.  The government will garnish their paycheck (and unlike commercial enterprises who can't take more than 10-20%, the government can take 100% of the paycheck.)  They can seize assets such as cars.  They don't screw around.

 

That is correct and it can be a drawn out process getting the loan because before the U.S government provides agrees to it they reach out to immediate (and maybe not so immediate) family members to pay for the ticket (I know this because my brother-in-law's ne'er do well brother ended up on the doorstep of the US Embassy Brussels 20 years ago).

Edited February 17, 2020 by capriccio

[sparks1093]

13 hours ago, frantic36 said:

 

How did you get into any of these countries without a passport? I visa I understand not needing but I would have thought even as an American you would still need a passport.

 

13 hours ago, clo said:

And you didn't need a passport.  Wow.

No, I didn't need a passport, just a little bitty green card that said "US Armed Forces". (And that type of travel is also one of the exceptions in the DHS regulations.)

[sparks1093]

13 hours ago, Elaine5715 said:

Not really, both need a passport to fly home...  The person without a passport at all will need to provide proof of citizenship taking longer, incurring more expenses

The difference is in the "how" they get home. One set of travel has regulations allowing for exceptions, the other doesn't. That's a big difference.

[sparks1093]

13 hours ago, frantic36 said:

 

Okay, so that is someone with special circumstances but not applicable to the general public. Is that how I should interpret that?

That's what the exceptions in the regulations all represent- special circumstances that may or may not be applicable to the general public. My point was that I'm quite used to traveling without a passport so for me to make the decision not to get one for a closed loop cruise wasn't that hard to make. When our travel patterns changed and we needed the passports we got them.

[sparks1093]

13 hours ago, Elaine5715 said:

Yeah, the delay would be going to the Consulate and getting an emergency passport .  You indeed posted in a thread before that you could go to the airport and undergo addition scrutiny and allowed to fly home.  

I said arrangements would be made for you by the authorities to go to the airport to fly to the nearest US airport (this is not something that you as the passenger have much, if any, role in) and that is where the delay would come in (you would also face delay at secondary inspection). If you are on an island without a Consulate how do you get to the nearest Consulate, which is likely on another island controlled by another government? You would need much more government intervention to get there then you would need to return to the US. This is exactly why the passport requirement may be waived under the regulations (which is not the same as the issuance of an emergency passport)

[sparks1093]

10 hours ago, ducklite said:

Not disagreeing with you but want to add a comment here.  If a person in the military has a family emergency (typically death in the immediate family) and is assisted by the Red Cross or other NGO to fly back to the US on a commercial flight, they need a passport to take that flight. Otherwise they will have to wait for a military hop to get stateside.

Nope, I didn't need it when I was in (and I did have to return under those circumstances) and it's not needed now. Military ID and military orders allows you to travel without a passport. (And when one returns to the US via military flight one still has to clear Customs.)

Edited February 17, 2020 by sparks1093

[sparks1093]

10 hours ago, ducklite said:

Yep.  Here's what happens when US citizens are stranded in a foreign country without the means to become repatriated.  The US Department of State pays for a ticket.  The person stranded needs to sign what is basically loan paperwork to the US government.  They are given a period of time, typically not to exceed 90 days to repay it.  After that the government can take action against them.  Their passport will be revoked, their tax returns and even bank accounts will be seized.  The government will garnish their paycheck (and unlike commercial enterprises who can't take more than 10-20%, the government can take 100% of the paycheck.)  They can seize assets such as cars.  They don't screw around.

They will only do this once the US citizen has exhausted all means to get the funds themselves.

[sparks1093]

7 hours ago, capriccio said:

 

Military members when on orders and traveling on an official business carry a no-fee (official) passport.  Many countries require a tourist passport for US military members and family members on personal travel.

Only those who do extensive independent duty travel, I never carried a passport. Family members are a different matter entirely.

[sparks1093]

13 hours ago, K32682 said:

 

My version of that question is: "What is the worst that can happen if something goes wrong and how will I manage the situation?"  It is why when outside of the country I always carry enough cash to get to the nearest airport, a credit card with enough room to walk on to a flight home in any class and my passport.   

 

If silly people want to take cruises without a passport or sufficient means to pay a hospital bill or cover a flight home then I am not particularly sympathetic to their plight.  I have complete sympathy for the young lad who was hurt as he bore the brunt of his mom's stupidity.  I hope he's okay. 

So you are going to paint the millions of people who choose to travel without a passport on closed loop cruise every year with the same brush? I'm sure some of them fall into the "silly" category but I'm also sure that some of them have actually done their due diligence (and have considered all of the what ifs) in making their decision.

[sparks1093]

13 hours ago, Elaine5715 said:

It isn't St.  Maarten's problem.  The Us Consulate's instructions are very clear, you present yourself in person in Curacao to get a emergency US passport.  I think you would apply for a Caribbean visa to get from St.Maarten to Curacao.    

Ah, but it kind of is St Maartin's problem because they now have an undocumented alien on their island. Of course this undocumented alien is a money spending tourist so they aren't going to throw them in jail but they are certainly going to cooperate with the US government to get them off of the island as quickly as possible. And one cannot obtain a visa without a passport the last time I checked. As I said, the most efficient means of dealing with this from a government viewpoint is to make arrangements for the citizen to return to the nearest US airport and deal with them there (which, once again, is allowed in the regulations).

[sparks1093]

12 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

Oh, there really should be no debate that having a passport is the best practice.   

I won't debate that a passport is the best travel document you can have, but it's not necessarily the best practice for some. I live in a border town and many of my friends and neighbors cross that border regularly for business and pleasure. It's the only type of foreign travel they are ever going to do. They all use either a passport card or Enhanced Drivers License (which is issued by only 5 states, Vermont being one of them). They would scoff at any suggestion that they obtain a passport. There are also people who only travel via closed loop cruise once every year or two. It's the only type of foreign travel they can do, at least right now. If they decide that they can use an alternative to a passport since it meets their needs what's that to anyone else? 

[K32682]

39 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

So you are going to paint the millions of people who choose to travel without a passport on closed loop cruise every year with the same brush? I'm sure some of them fall into the "silly" category but I'm also sure that some of them have actually done their due diligence (and have considered all of the what ifs) in making their decision.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature would  have included among the "what ifs" a scenario similar to the one in the original post and acquired a passport.  We don't disagree that the odds favor the million of complete dunderheads who don't get passports and make it home without a problem.  A few of them run into problems like the mother in Florida and then whine about the cruise line and government instead of accepting responsibilities for their own failures.  

[K32682]

1 hour ago, sparks1093 said:

I said arrangements would be made for you by the authorities to go to the airport to fly to the nearest US airport (this is not something that you as the passenger have much, if any, role in) and that is where the delay would come in (you would also face delay at secondary inspection). If you are on an island without a Consulate how do you get to the nearest Consulate, which is likely on another island controlled by another government? You would need much more government intervention to get there then you would need to return to the US. This is exactly why the passport requirement may be waived under the regulations (which is not the same as the issuance of an emergency passport)

 

The unprepared and incompetent need the intervention of a foreign government which might be in no hurry to help. They'll probably get around to it eventually.  In the meantime the hapless cruise who thought he'd save money by not getting a passport can settle back and wait until it happens.

 

Someone taking your advice who doesn't get a passport and runs into a problem must beg for the kindness of strangers in a foreign land simply to get to the representatives of their own country who are perhaps hundreds of miles away.   

 

Someone taking my advice to always have a passport pays for a taxi to take him to the airport and takes a plane home.    

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by K32682

[sparks1093]

1 minute ago, K32682 said:

 

The unprepared and incompetent need the intervention of a foreign government which might be in no hurry to help. They'll probably get around to it eventually.  In the meantime the hapless cruise who thought he'd save money by not getting a passport can settle back and wait until it happens.

 

Someone taking your advice who doesn't get a passport and runs into a problem must beg for the kindness of strangers in a foreign land simply to get to the representatives of their own country who are perhaps hundreds of miles away.   

 

Someone taking my advice to always have a passport pays for a taxi to take him to the airport and takes a plane home.    

 

I advise people to use their head and make their own decisions based on their own needs and risk factors. I don't second guess their decision because I haven't enough data about them. Again, their decision to travel without a passport doesn't affect you in the slightest so there's hardly a need to disparagingly label them. 

[sparks1093]

16 minutes ago, K32682 said:

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature would  have included among the "what ifs" a scenario similar to the one in the original post and acquired a passport.  We don't disagree that the odds favor the million of complete dunderheads who don't get passports and make it home without a problem.  A few of them run into problems like the mother in Florida and then whine about the cruise line and government instead of accepting responsibilities for their own failures.  

So let them whine. Personally in the scenario presented in the original post I wouldn't have tried to get home at all (even if I had a passport). If the ship was allowing me to stay that is exactly what I would do, because I know that the situation isn't that bad. 

Edited February 17, 2020 by sparks1093

[frantic36]

37 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

I advise people to use their head and make their own decisions based on their own needs and risk factors. I don't second guess their decision because I haven't enough data about them. Again, their decision to travel without a passport doesn't affect you in the slightest so there's hardly a need to disparagingly label them. 

 

sparks, your experience being within the military and not needing a passport for many years I would say is different to those of us who have travelled without that back-up and needed to rely on our own resources and passports to travel in other countries. 

 

Interesting that you now use a passport.

 

I'm bowing out of this discussion because I know you will always argue against the need for passports for what if situations.

[sparks1093]

2 minutes ago, frantic36 said:

 

sparks, your experience being within the military and not needing a passport for many years I would say is different to those of us who have travelled without that back-up and needed to rely on our own resources and passports to travel in other countries. 

 

Interesting that you now use a passport.

 

I'm bowing out of this discussion because I know you will always argue against the need for passports for what if situations.

I use a passport now because my travel needs changed and we can now travel by air, which is something we could not do before 2015 and we're leaving for our 4th trip to Germany in April. If anyone is concerned about the "what ifs" then they absolutely should get a passport and more power to them. I will provide a counter-point to the what ifs and this thread is a perfect example- "what if my kid gets sick when we're on the cruise?" If you are traveling with young children it is a question that absolutely has to be asked because kids do get sick. But why should someone who is not traveling with kids even consider the question? "What if we miss the ship?" is another question that can be asked and for the most part that is entirely within the passengers control by what they choose to do in port. If they go off on their own and stray far from the port then their risk is higher for possibly missing the ship. If they are staying on the ship in the ports then it's a moot point for them. For myself I always make sure that we plan to return to the ship hours before the deadline or if not then we are on a ship's excursion. And I participate in these discussions so people can have as much information as possible in order to make the decision that works best for them. Everyone's travel needs are different, and there are legitimate choices to be made in choosing travel documentation. Whether it's advisable or not for any particular traveler is a question I generally won't answer because I don't have enough information to make that call.

[sanger727]

11 hours ago, LMADAMS91 said:

Wow! This thread has meandered a bit along the way!

Regarding the original post and mom/sick kid......I read about this several days ago and followed for a few days on other social media sites. 
First question-mom supposedly had travel insurance, however, the original injury to the child happened before she/he boarded the ship. According to one of her FB rants,  "he got sick within 24 hours of boarding."  I suspect the infection started before he boarded the ship; the original injury was DEFINITELY before he boarded.  Depending on when they purchased insurance, will this even be covered?

She was given the option of getting off in Cozumel to seek treatment but opted not to.  The reason given was no passport and, according to another rant, she was supposedly told she wouldn't be able to get back on the ship without a passport.  I've never had to have my passport to reboard a cruise ship at a port and I seriously doubt anyone from the ship told her that. I'm thinking mom has embellished a bit for sympathy. I suspect she realized that her credit card had already been maxed out due to the on board treatment her son had been given and that a Mexican hospital was going to demand payment before she could leave. 

 

 

 

Hit the nail on the head. Really not sure why this discussion is getting so heated. If you read more than the headline of this story it becomes crystal clear that this wasn't really about her not having a passport. It was really about how much the medical center on the ship was charging her and that they were threatening to take actions if it wasn't paid. If she was told that if she got off in Cozumel and couldn't reboard, almost certainly that was related to her refusing to pay her bill. She couldn't pay her bill on the ship, she couldn't have fronted money to pay for a visit in Mexico, and likely if she had passports she couldn't have fronted the money for emergency flights home anyway. This whole thing is about money, not passports. That was just a convenient excuse. 

[navybankerteacher]

12 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

 

...This whole thing is about money, not passports. That was just a convenient excuse. 

Almost everything is ultimately about money.  In this case the reason passports were part  of the story is that people want to save money by not bothering to get passports.

[BlueRiband]

43 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

 

Hit the nail on the head. Really not sure why this discussion is getting so heated. If you read more than the headline of this story it becomes crystal clear that this wasn't really about her not having a passport. It was really about how much the medical center on the ship was charging her and that they were threatening to take actions if it wasn't paid. If she was told that if she got off in Cozumel and couldn't reboard, almost certainly that was related to her refusing to pay her bill. She couldn't pay her bill on the ship, she couldn't have fronted money to pay for a visit in Mexico, and likely if she had passports she couldn't have fronted the money for emergency flights home anyway. This whole thing is about money, not passports. That was just a convenient excuse. 

Yep.  It's now the cruise line's "fault" for charging to much. 

 

People have the right to make their own risk decisions.  But when something goes terribly wrong some will run to the news media to tell a tale of woe and how the cruise line is being so horrible and greedy.  After searching a few key words I found that her story was picked up by Florida media and some conveniently posted a link to her fundraising site.  Translation: Here is a desperately sick little boy and only the general public cares enough to help this child. 

[clo]

5 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

 

No, I didn't need a passport, just a little bitty green card that said "US Armed Forces". (And that type of travel is also one of the exceptions in the DHS regulations.)

So were you able to travel to other countries without a passport. Bob was in the Army in Germany in the 70s and he had a passport and traveled enormous amount in Europe at that time. Can't remember if he needed a passport to do that.

[sparks1093]

15 hours ago, CPT Trips said:

Well, let’s not go to far with that. ID card is only good to enter the country of assignment wit orders and travel within that country when permitted by a Status of Forces Agreement.

Here are a few actual problems. https://www.stripes.com/news/soldiers-may-run-into-problems-when-deploying-overseas-without-a-passport-1.537478 It would not make Stars and Stripes were it not a problem in more cases. And the article says just that.

Yes, if a military member wants to stray too far from the ship or station they would need a passport. And the article does say that a direct flight to the US with military orders and ID is permissible (which the soldiers did once they realized that they couldn't layover in Canada without a passport). The farthest away from my ship that I ever went was 140 miles on a ship sponsored tour of Rome from Naples. Some activities might be hampered by not having a passport, too. A friend and I were denied entry into a casino in Nice, France because we lacked passports so we had to find something else to do. (I had no trouble entering Monte Carlo in Monaco without one.) I stayed in a hotel in Cartagena, Spain and I believe they made a copy of my ID. 

[ducklite]

6 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

Only those who do extensive independent duty travel, I never carried a passport. Family members are a different matter entirely.

My BIL's father passed away.  Because of where they were stationed, the Red Cross flew them home commercial, as they wouldn't have been able to get home otherwise for over a week.  His passport had expired while they were overseas.  He needed to get a new one at the consulate before they could fly on a commercial airplane.  BA to AA.

[ducklite]

6 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

They will only do this once the US citizen has exhausted all means to get the funds themselves.

Obviously.

[ducklite]

1 hour ago, clo said:

So were you able to travel to other countries without a passport. Bob was in the Army in Germany in the 70s and he had a passport and traveled enormous amount in Europe at that time. Can't remember if he needed a passport to do that.

BIL and Sister traveled a lot when they were stationed there in the 80's and needed a passport to do so.  I'd like to see anyone try to get into Germany for example from a non-Schengen country using a US military ID.  Unless they are accompanied by official orders, it's not going to happen.