The State Department has run into a buzz saw of criticism over a proposal that would ask certain passport applicants to cough up a wealth of data about themselves and their families, including naming previous employers, schools attended and "mother's residence one year before your birth."
The proposed questionnaire would also ask passport applicants to "describe the circumstances of your birth, including the names (as well as address and phone number, if available) of persons present or in attendance at your birth."
A related question invites applicants to identify anybody who attended related religious ceremonies, such as a baptism or circumcision.
Numerous critics have blasted the proposal as an affront to liberty and an unwarranted, unconstitutional and patently ridiculous example of a government run amok.
One called it an "attack on our rights and dignity."
What many commentators appear to have ignored, overlooked or not known, however, is that the questionnaire isn’t being designed for general use. In fact, it is intended as a way to help people get a passport when they lack the standard required documentation.
According to the State Department, the basic passport application is not being changed, and the proposed questionnaire will be given only to those applicants who "lack sufficient proof of citizenship or identity."
The State Department estimates that the percentage of passport applicants affected will be about 0.5%, perhaps less.
However, this information did not accompany the questionnaire when it was first released. As a result, the State Department is being bludgeoned in the blogosphere for what appears to have been a case of very bad public relations.
The wording of the questions was sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review in February, and a routine notice was posted in the Federal Register, inviting interested persons to comment.
A review of the public comments reveals that the notice went unnoticed at first. During the second half of April, however, 3,300 comments came in.
As of the comment deadline, the docket indicated no submissions by the industry's major associations, such as the U.S. Travel Association, Air Transport Association, ASTA or others.
'Ill-advised and ridiculous'
Individuals generally expressed anger or disbelief. One typical comment began, "If I had read about this proposed rulemaking on April 1, I would have assumed that it was a hilarious April Fool's prank."
The writer continued: "The current two-page form DS-11 requests sufficient information to obtain a U.S. passport. ... Why do you need 'your mother's residence one year before your birth?' The [State Department] should immediately withdraw this ill-advised — and ridiculous — proposed rulemaking."
Another person wrote: "I am an elderly American. My passport has expired, and I would likely be denied a new one should I have to answer the biographic information proposed. Who remembers the name of a supervisor for a filing job 55 years ago? Certainly not I. I beg of you not to introduce these new requirements to obtain a passport."
A sampling of other comments:
• "This absolutely stinks. It solves a problem that doesn't exist, unless that problem is to become more like the despotic regimes we're supposedly fighting. Dump it."
• "Given the amount of documentation that is already required to get a passport, the new requirements are simply absurd."
• "The amount of information proposed here seems ludicrous. ... I never thought I would fear my own government, but proposals like this make me concerned as to their purpose and how they will actually affect citizens and our ability to be free, when executed."
• "I strongly disapprove of making it harder for U.S. citizens to get a passport. The new information requested is irrelevant, burdensome, difficult or impossible to gather, intrusive and generally none of the government's business! We are NOT supposed to be a police state!"
Some of the comments seem to have been triggered by an April 22 posting on the ConsumerTraveler.com website by travel writer Edward Hasbrouck, under the headline "State Dept. wants to make it harder to get a passport."
The article said, "It seems likely that only some, not all, applicants will be required to fill out the new questionnaire," but it also warned that "no criteria have been made public" for determining who has to answer the questions
Several advocacy groups, including the Consumer Travel Alliance and the Identity Project, jointly filed a 22-page paper taking issue with the lack of specific guidelines about who would be required to complete the questionnaire, citing a "complete lack of substantive standards and procedural safeguards."
An automated response
As of last week, writing to the email address of the State Department contact shown in the original Federal Register notice elicited an automated email response to "clarify a few common misconceptions regarding this form."
The response stated that the questions would supplement the DS-11 application "only when the applicant submits citizenship or identity evidence that is insufficient to meet his/her burden of proving citizenship or identity."
It also said that "less than 0.5% of the applications we receive annually" would be affected.
It continued: "The Department understands that some of the information requested is quite detailed. However, in those instances where an applicant cannot provide sufficient proof of citizenship or identity, it is important for the applicant to provide additional information which will help establish the applicant's United States citizenship or identity."
As for the "wide range of questions related to an applicant's birth," the email stated that these are designed "to accommodate the wide range of birth circumstances of U.S. citizens. Many of these questions may not apply to the majority of applicants; however, for cases where the information may apply, it gives an opportunity to provide additional information that may then support passport issuance."
None of the above information was included in the public notice.
Rebecca Dodds, a spokeswoman for the department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, said the bureau has been "working to clarify" the purpose of the questionnaire, saying it was designed "to help people establish their citizenship" in cases when the supporting documents are "insufficient or of questionable authenticity." She re-emphasized that fewer than 0.5% would be affected.
Under the current system, when an application is deemed deficient, the bureau sends a letter requesting further information or documents. The proposed questionnaire, she said, would supplement that process.
Questions about birth circumstances, for example, would be relevant if the applicant was not born in a hospital, she said.
When asked who will decide if an applicant needs to provide further information, Dodds said existing adjudicators, trained to handle passport applications, would continue to do so.
Now that the comment period has ended, Dodds said the bureau will review the comments, make any necessary revisions to the questionnaire and resubmit any changes to the OMB for further review, triggering another solicitation for public comments.