As seen from the Bhutanese side
As seen from the Indian side
Border control refers to measures taken by a state or a bloc of states to monitor[1] and regulate the movement of people, animals, and goods across its borders, including land borders as well as airports and sea ports. In some cases, it can also refer to such controls imposed on internal borders within a single state. Border controls in the 21st century are tightly intertwined with intricate systems of travel documents, visas, and increasingly complex policies that vary between countries. While some borders (including most states' internal borders and or international borders within the Schengen Area) are open and completely unguarded, others (including the vast majority of borders between countries as well as some internal borders) are subject to some degree of control and may be crossed legally only at designated checkpoints.
States and rulers have always regarded the ability to determine who enters or remains in their territories as a key test of their sovereignty, but prior to World War I, border controls were only sporadically implemented.[2] In medieval Europe, for example, the boundaries between rival countries and centres of power were largely symbolic or consisted of amorphous borderlands, ‘marches’ and ‘debatable lands’ of indeterminate or contested status and the real ‘borders’ consisted of the fortified walls that surrounded towns and cities, where the authorities could exclude undesirable or incompatible people at the gates, from vagrants, beggars and the ‘wandering poor’, to ‘masterless women’, lepers, Romani or Jews.[3]
The concept of border controls has its origins in antiquity. In Asia, the existence of border controls is evidenced in classical texts. The Arthashastra (c. 3rd century BCE) make mentions of passes issued at the rate of one masha per pass to enter and exit the country. Chapter 34 of the Second Book of Arthashastra concerns with the duties of the Mudrādhyakṣa (lit. 'Superintendent of Seals') who must issue sealed passes before a person could enter or leave the countryside. [4] Passports resembling those issued today were an important part of the Chinese bureaucracy as early as the Western Han (202 BCE-220 CE), if not in the Qin Dynasty. They required such details as age, height, and bodily features.[5] These passports (zhuan) determined a person's ability to move throughout imperial counties and through points of control. Even children needed passports, but those of one year or less who were in their mother's care may not have needed them.[5]
In the medieval Islamic Caliphate, a form of passport was the bara'a, a receipt for taxes paid. Border controls were in place to ensure that only people who paid their zakah (for Muslims) or jizya (for dhimmis) taxes could travel freely between different regions of the Caliphate; thus, the bara'a receipt was a "basic passport."[6]
In medieval Europe, passports were issued since at least the reign of Henry V of England, as a means of helping his subjects prove who they were in foreign lands. The earliest reference to these documents is found in a 1414 Act of Parliament.[7][8] In 1540, granting travel documents in England became a role of the Privy Council of England, and it was around this time that the term "passport" was used. In 1794, issuing British passports became the job of the Office of the Secretary of State.[7] The 1548 Imperial Diet of Augsburg required the public to hold imperial documents for travel, at the risk of permanent exile.[9] During World War I, European governments introduced border passport requirements for security reasons, and to control the emigration of people with useful skills. These controls remained in place after the war, becoming a standard, though controversial, procedure. British tourists of the 1920s complained, especially about attached photographs and physical descriptions, which they considered led to a "nasty dehumanisation".[10]
Starting in the mid-19th century, the Ottoman Empire established quarantine stations on many of its borders to control disease. For example, along the Greek-Turkish border, all travellers entering and exiting the Ottoman Empire would be quarantined for 9–15 days. These stations would often be manned by armed guards. If plague appeared, the Ottoman army would be deployed to enforce border control and monitor disease.[11]
One of the earliest systematic attempts of modern nation states to implement border controls to restrict entry of particular groups were policies adopted by Canada, Australia, and America to curtail immigration of Asians in white settler states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The first anti-East Asian policy implemented in this era was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 in America, which was followed suit by the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 in Canada, which imposed what came to be called the Chinese head tax. These policies was a sign of injustice and unfair treatment to the Chinese workers because the jobs they engaged in were mostly menial jobs.[12] Similar policies were adopted in various British colonies in Australia over the latter half of the 19th century targeting Asian immigrants arriving as a result of the region's series of gold rushes[13] as well as Kanakas (Pacific Islanders brought into Australia as indentured labourers)[14] who alongside the Asians were perceived by trade unionists and White blue collar workers as a threat to the wages of White settlers.[15] Following the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, these discriminatory border control measures quickly expanded into the White Australia Policy, while subsequent legislation in America (e.g. the Immigration Act of 1891, the Naturalisation Act of 1906, and the Immigration Act of 1917) resulted in an even stricter policy targeting immigrants from both Asia and parts of southern and eastern Europe.
.jpg)
Even following the adoption of measures such as the White Australia Policy and the Chinese Exclusion Act in English-speaking settler colonies, pervasive control of international borders remained a relatively rare phenomenon until the early 20th century, prior to which many states had open international borders either in practice or due to a lack of any legal restriction. John Maynard Keynes identified World War I in particular as the point when such controls became commonplace.[16]
Decolonisation during the twentieth century saw the emergence of mass emigration from nations in the Global South, thus leading former colonial occupiers to introduce stricter border controls.[17] In the United Kingdom this process took place in stages, with British nationality law eventually shifting from recognising all Commonwealth citizens as British subjects to today’s complex British nationality law which distinguishes between British citizens, modern British Subjects, British Overseas Citizens, and overseas nationals, with each non-standard category created as a result of attempts to balance border control and the need to mitigate statelessness. This aspect of the rise of border control in the 20th century has proven controversial. The British Nationality Law 1981 has been criticised by experts,[a] as well as by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination of the United Nations,[b] on the grounds that the different classes of British nationality it created are, in fact, closely related to the ethnic origins of their holders.
The creation of British Nationality (Overseas) status, for instance, (with fewer privileges than British citizen status) was met with criticism from many Hong Kong residents who felt that British citizenship would have been more appropriate in light of the "moral debt" owed to them by the UK.[c][d] Some British politicians[e] and magazines[f] also criticised the creation of BN(O) status. In 2020, the British government under Boris Johnson announced a programme under which BN(O)s would have leave to remain in the UK with rights to work and study for five years, after which they may apply for settled status. They would then be eligible for full citizenship after holding settled status for 12 months.[23] This was implemented as the eponymously named "British National (Overseas) visa", a residence permit that BN(O)s and their dependent family members have been able to apply for since 31 January 2021.[24][25] BN(O)s and their dependents who arrived in the UK before the new immigration route became available were granted "Leave Outside the Rules" at the discretion of the Border Force to remain in the country for up to six months as a temporary measure.[26] In effect, this retroactively granted BN(O)s a path to right of abode in the United Kingdom. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, about 7,000 people had entered the UK under this scheme between July 2020 and January 2021.[27]
Ethnic tensions created during colonial occupation also resulted in discriminatory policies being adopted in newly independent African nations, such as Uganda under Idi Amin which banned Asians from Uganda, thus creating a mass exodus of the (largely Gujarati[28][29]) Asian community of Uganda. Such ethnically driven border control policies took forms ranging from anti-Asian sentiment in East Africa to Apartheid policies in South Africa and Namibia (then known as Southwest Africa under South African rule) which created bantustans[g] and pass laws[h] to segregate and impose border controls against non-whites, and encouraged immigration of whites at the expense of Blacks as well as Indians and other Asians. Whilst border control in Europe and east of the Pacific have tightened over time,[17] they have largely been liberalised in Africa, from Yoweri Museveni’s reversal of Idi Amin’s anti-Asian border controls[i] to the fall of Apartheid (and thus racialised border controls) in South Africa.
The development of border control policies over the course of the 20th century also saw the standardisation of refugee travel documents under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951[j] and the 1954 Convention travel document[36] for stateless people under the similar 1954 statelessness convention.
The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 produced a drastic tightening of border controls across the globe. Many countries and regions have imposed quarantines, entry bans, or other restrictions for citizens of or recent travellers to the most affected areas.[37] Other countries and regions have imposed global restrictions that apply to all foreign countries and territories, or prevent their own citizens from travelling overseas.[38] The imposition of border controls has curtailed the spread of the virus, but because they were first implemented after community spread was established in multiple countries in different regions of the world, they produced only a modest reduction in the total number of people infected[39] These strict border controls economic harm to the tourism industry through lost income and social harm to people who were unable to travel for family matters or other reasons. When the travel bans are lifted, many people are expected to resume traveling. However, some travel, especially business travel, may be decreased long-term as lower cost alternatives, such as teleconferencing and virtual events, are preferred.[40] A possible long-term impact has been a decline of business travel and international conferencing, and the rise of their virtual, online equivalents.[41] Concerns have been raised over the effectiveness of travel restrictions to contain the spread of COVID-19.[42]
Internal border controls are measures implemented to control the flow of people or goods within a given country. Such measures take a variety of forms ranging from the imposition of border checkpoints to the issuance of internal travel documents and vary depending on the circumstances in which they are implemented. Circumstances resulting in internal border controls include increasing security around border areas (e.g. internal checkpoints in America or Bhutan near border regions), preserving the autonomy of autonomous or minority areas (e.g. border controls between Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, and Sarawak; border controls between Hong Kong, Macau, and mainland China), preventing unrest between ethnic groups (e.g. Northern Ireland’s peace walls, border controls in Tibet and Northeastern India), and disputes between rival governments (e.g. between the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China).
During the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary internal border controls were introduced in jurisdictions across the globe. For instance, travel between Australian states and territories was prohibited or restricted by state governments at various points of the pandemic either in conjunction with sporadic lockdowns or as a stand-alone response to COVID-19 outbreaks in neighbouring states.[43][44][45] Internal border controls were also introduced at various stages of Malaysia’s Movement Control Order, per which interstate travel was restricted depending on the severity of ongoing outbreaks. Similarly, internal controls were introduced by national authorities within the Schengen Area, though the European Union ultimately rejected the idea of suspending the Schengen Agreement per se.[46][47]
Internal border controls exist in many parts of Asia. For example, minority regions in India and China often require special permits (i.e. Restricted Area Permits, Protected Area Permits, Tibet Travel Permits, or Alien Travel Permits) for foreign nationals to enter in addition to visas where required. In some cases, these restrictions are not limited to foreigners. For instance, certain minority areas of India additionally require Indian citizens to possess an Inner Line Permit to enter. Similarly, the Tibet Autonomous Region (Tibetan: བོད་རང་སྐྱོང་ལྗོངས།) in China exempts Chinese citizens from the Mainland, Hong Kong, and Macau to obtain TTPs and ATPs. However, Chinese citizens from areas administered by the Republic of China[k] are required to obtain TTPs or ATPs on the same basis as foreign nationals.
Internal air and rail travel within non-autonomous portions of India and mainland China also generally requires travel documents to be checked by government officials as a form of interior border checkpoint. For such travel within India, Indian citizens may utilise their Voter ID, National Identity Card, passport, or other proof of Indian citizenship whilst Nepali nationals may present any similar proof of Napali citizenship. Meanwhile, for such travel within mainland China, Chinese nationals from the mainland are required to use their national identity cards.
Within China, extensive border controls are maintained for those travelling between the mainland, special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau, and areas controlled by the Republic of China.[k] Foreign nationals need to present their passports or other required types of travel documents when travelling between these areas. For Chinese nationals (including those with British National (Overseas) status), there are special documents[l] for travel between these territories. Similar arrangements, in the form of the Mainland Travel Permit for Taiwan Residents issued by mainland authority and similar permits issued by Taiwan authorities exist for travel between Taiwan and territories controlled by the People’s Republic of China. Internal border controls in the Chinese Special Administrative Regions have also meant that immigrants from the mainland require a One Way Travel Permit, the issuance of which is controlled by the mainland government, thus giving that region of China greater control over emigration rather than by Hong Kong or Macau as would be expected of border controls aimed at curtailing immigration. Since September 2018, Chinese citizens from Hong Kong, Macau, and areas administered by the Republic of China residing in the mainland have been issued a special residence permit distinct from the various travel documents used for temporary travel between the four regions.
China also maintains distinct, relaxed border control policies in the Special Economic Zones of Shenzhen, Zhuhai and Xiamen.[48][49] Nationals of most countries can obtain a limited area visa upon arrival in these regions, which permit them to stay within these cities without proceeding further into other parts of Mainland China. Visas for Shenzhen are valid for 5 days, and visas for Xiamen and Zhuhai are valid for 3 days. The duration of stay starts from the next day of arrival.[50] The visa can only be obtained only upon arrival at Luohu Port, Huanggang Port Control Point, Fuyong Ferry Terminal or Shekou Passenger Terminal for Shenzhen;[51] Gongbei Port of Entry, Hengqin Port or Jiuzhou Port for Zhuhai;[52] and Xiamen Gaoqi International Airport for Xiamen.[53] Visa fees are charged on a reciprocal basis ranging from ¥168 for citizens of most countries to ¥956 for citizens of the United States.[citation needed] Nationals of the following countries are ineligible for the SEZ visa for Shenzhen:[54]
Similarly, China permits non—visa-exempt nationals of ASEAN countries listed below can visit Guilin without a visa for a maximum of 6 days if they travel with an approved tour group and enter China from Guilin Liangjiang International Airport. They may not visit other cities within Guangxi or other parts of Mainland China.[55] Non-visa-exempt ASEAN countries are:
More generally, authorities in mainland China maintain a system of residency registration known as hukou, by which government permission is needed to formally change one's place of residence. It is enforced with identity cards. This system of internal border control measures effectively limited internal migration before the 1980s but subsequent market reforms caused it to collapse as a means of migration control. An estimated 150 to 200 million people are part of the "blind flow" and have unofficially migrated, generally from poor, rural areas to wealthy, urban ones. However, unofficial residents are often denied official services such as education and medical care and are sometimes subject to both social and political discrimination. In essence, the denial of social services outside an individual’s registered area of residence functions as an internal border control measure geared toward dissuading migration within the mainland.
The Hộ khẩu system in Vietnam is similar to the Hukou system in mainland China. Local authorities issue each household a "household registration book" or sổ hộ khẩu, in which the basic biographical information of each household member is recorded. The sổ hộ khẩu is the ultimate legal proof of residence in Vietnam. Together with the "citizen identification card" or giấy chứng minh nhân dân/căn cước công dân, the sổ hộ khẩu constitutes the most important legal identification document in Vietnam. Modeled after the Chinese hukou system and originally used in urban areas only, hộ khẩu functioned as a way to manage urban growth and limit how many people moved, as well as who moved in and out of the cities.[56] Gradually, the system became a universal method of control as its application expanded to the countryside.[57] Presently, the system defines four types of residence, KT1 through KT4. KT1 is the primary and permanent type of residence, and denotes a person's primary residential address. If this person moves on a semi-permanent basis to another place within the same province or national municipality (within Saigon, for example), then he or she needs to register for a KT2 residential status at that new address. If this same move happens across provincial borders, then the person has to sign up for a KT3 registration. For migrant workers and students temporarily residing outside of their province or national municipality of permanent residence, they need to apply for a KT4 registration.[56] Navigating this matrix of regulations is tough. But the public security apparatus that manages the hộ khẩu system is also difficult to deal with, especially if one is a poor migrant worker with little to no formal education. Yet hộ khẩu remains absolutely crucial, especially for the poor. It is tied to access to welfare benefits, and, in the case of children, the right to attend public school.[58] For a migrant family in Saigon with no KT3 or KT4 registration, subsidised medical care, poverty assistance, and almost-free schooling are all out of reach.[57] Much like its counterpart in mainland China, the denial of services outside an individual’s place of registered residence resulting from this system of internal border control serves to dissuade internal migration.
Another example is the Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak, which have maintained their own border controls[59] since joining Malaysia in 1963. The internal border control is asymmetrical; while Sabah and Sarawak impose immigration control on Malaysian citizens from other states, there is no corresponding border control in Peninsular Malaysia, and Malaysians from Sabah and Sarawak have unrestricted right to live and work in the Peninsular. For social and business visits less than three months, Malaysian citizens may travel between the Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak using the Malaysian identity card (MyKad) or Malaysian passport, while for longer stays in Sabah and Sarawak they are required to have an Internal Travel Document or a passport with the appropriate residential permit.
Meanwhile, in Bhutan, a microstate accessible by road only through India, there are interior border checkposts (primarily on the Lateral Road) and, additionally, certain areas require special permits to enter, whilst visitors not proceeding beyond the border city of Phuentsholing do not need permits to enter for the day (although such visitors are de facto subject to Indian visa policy since they must proceed through Jaigaon). Individuals who are not citizens of India, Bangladesh, or the Maldives are not allowed to proceed past Phuentsholing by land and are instead required to arrive by air at the country's sole international airport in Paro, which has flights from India and other countries in the Greater India region such as Thailand, Singapore, and Nepal.
The most restrictive internal border controls are in North Korea. Citizens are not allowed to travel outside their areas of residence without explicit authorisation, and access to the capital city of Pyongyang is heavily restricted.[60][61] Similar restrictions are imposed on tourists, who are only allowed to leave Pyongyang on government-authorised tours to approved tourist sites.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
An example from Europe is the implementation of border controls on travel between Svalbard, which maintains a policy of free migration as a result of the Svalbard Treaty and the Schengen Area, which includes the rest of Norway. Other examples of effective internal border controls in Europe include the closed cities of certain CIS members, areas of Turkmenistan that require special permits to enter, restrictions on travel to the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region in Tajikistan, and (depending on whether Northern and Southern Cyprus are considered separate countries) the Cypriot border. Similarly, Iraq's Kurdistan region maintains a separate and more liberal visa and customs area from the rest of the country, even allowing visa free entry for Israelis whilst the rest of the country bans them from entering. Denmark also maintains a complex system of subnational countries with autonomous customs policies, since they aren't within the European Union like the Danish mainland. These are Greenland and the Faroe Islands. These areas do not maintain strict immigration controls with the Schengen Area, but border controls are sporadically enforced for customs purposes. In addition to the numerous closed cities of Russia,[62] parts of 19 subjects[m] of the Russian Federation are closed for foreigners without special permits and are consequently subject to internal border controls.[63]
The Israeli military maintains an intricate network of internal border controls within Israeli and Palestinian territory restricting the freedom of movement of Palestinians, composed of permanent, temporary, and random manned checkpoints in the West Bank; the West Bank Barrier; and restrictions on the usage of roads by Palestinians.[64] Spread throughout the State of Israel and the areas of the State of Palestine under de facto Israeli control, internal border control measures are a key feature of Israeli and Palestinian life and are amongst the most restrictive in the world. Additionally, the blockade of the Gaza Strip results in a de facto domestic customs and immigration border for Palestinians. In order to clear internal border controls, Palestinians are required to obtain a variety of permits from Israeli authorities depending on the purpose and area of their travel. The legality and impact of this network of internal border controls is controversial. B'Tselem, an Israeli non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Palestine, argues that they breach the rights guaranteed by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—in particular, the right to a livelihood, the right to an acceptable standard of living, the right to satisfactory nutrition, clothing, and housing, and the right to attain the best standard of physical and mental health.[65] B'Tselem also argues that the restrictions on ill, wounded and pregnant Palestinians seeking acute medical care is in contravention of international law that states that medical professionals and the sick must be granted open passage.[66] While Israeli Supreme Court has deemed the measures acceptable for security reasons, Haaretz's Amira Hass argues this policy defies one of the principles of the Oslo Accords, which states that Gaza and the West Bank constitute a single geographic unit.[67]
An unusual example of internal border controls pertains to customs enforcement within the Schengen area. Even though borders are generally invisible, the existence of areas within the Schengen area but outside the European Union Value Added Tax Area, as well as jurisdictions such as Andorra which are not officially a part of the Schengen area but can not be accessed without passing through it, has resulted in the existence of sporadic internal border controls for customs purposes. Additionally, as per Schengen area rules,[68] hotels and other types of commercial accommodation must register all foreign citizens, including citizens of other Schengen states, by requiring the completion of a registration form by their own hand. This does not apply to accompanying spouses and minor children or members of travel groups. In addition, a valid identification document has to be produced to the hotel manager or staff.[69] The Schengen rules do not require any other procedures; thus, the Schengen states are free to regulate further details on the content of the registration forms, and identity documents which are to be produced, and may also require the persons exempted from registration by Schengen laws to be registered. A Schengen state is also permitted to reinstate border controls with another Schengen country for a short period where there is a serious threat to that state's "public policy or internal security" or when the "control of an external border is no longer ensured due to exceptional circumstances".[70] When such risks arise out of foreseeable events, the state in question must notify the European Commission in advance and consult with other Schengen states.[71] In April 2010 Malta introduced temporary checks due to Pope Benedict XVI's visit.[72] It reimposed checks in 2015 in the weeks surrounding the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. In response to the European migrant crisis, several countries set up internal controls. In 2019, Denmark, worried about the bombings in Sweden, introduced passport controls to Swedish citizens for the first time since the 1950s.[73]
Another complex border control situation in Europe pertains to the United Kingdom. Whilst the crown dependencies are within the Common Travel Area, neither Gibraltar nor the sovereign British military exclaves of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are. The former maintains its own border control policies, thus requiring physical border security at its border with the Schengen Area as well as the implementation of border controls for travellers proceeding directly between Gibraltar and the British mainland. The latter maintains a relatively open border with Southern Cyprus, though not with Northern Cyprus. Consequently, it is a de facto member of the Schengen Area and travel to or from the British mainland requires border controls. On 31 December 2020, Spain and the United Kingdom reached an agreement in principle under which Gibraltar would join the Schengen Area,[74] clearing the way for the European Union and the UK to start formal negotiations on the matter.[75]
The peace lines in Northern Ireland are a de facto internal border security measure to separate predominantly republican and nationalist Catholic neighbourhoods from predominantly loyalist and unionist Protestant neighbourhoods. They have been in place in some form or another since the end of The Troubles in 1998, with the Good Friday Agreement. The majority of peace walls are located in Belfast, but they also exist in Derry, Portadown, and Lurgan,[76] with more than 32 kilometres of walls in Northern Ireland.[77] The peace lines range in length from a few hundred metres to over 5 kilometres. They may be made of iron, brick, steel or a combination of the three and are up to 8 metres high.[78][76] Some have gates in them (sometimes staffed by police) that allow passage during daylight but are closed at night.
In the aftermath of Brexit, border controls for goods flowing between Great Britain and Northern Ireland were introduced in accordance with the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland agreed to as part of the UK’s withdrawal agreement with the EU. [79] Due to the thirty-year internecine conflict in Northern Ireland, the UK-Ireland border has had a special status since that conflict was ended by the Belfast Agreement/Good Friday Agreement of 1998. As part of the Northern Ireland Peace Process, the border has been largely invisible, without any physical barrier or custom checks on its many crossing points; this arrangement was made possible by both countries' common membership of both the EU's Single Market and Customs Union and of their Common Travel Area. Upon the UK's withdrawal from the European Union, the border in Ireland became the only land border between the UK and EU. EU single market and UK internal market provisions require certain customs checks and trade controls at their external borders. The Northern Ireland Protocol is intended to protect the EU single market, while avoiding imposition of a 'hard border' that might incite a recurrence of conflict and destabilise the relative peace that has held since the end of the Troubles. Under the Protocol, Northern Ireland is formally outside the EU single market, but EU free movement of goods rules and EU Customs Union rules still apply; this ensures there are no customs checks or controls between Northern Ireland and the rest of the island. In place of an Ireland/Northern Ireland land border, the protocol has created a de facto customs border down the Irish Sea for customs purposes, separating Northern Ireland from the island of Great Britain,[80][81] to the disquiet of prominent Unionists. [82] To operate the terms of the protocol, the United Kingdom must provide border control posts at Northern Ireland's ports:[82] actual provision of these facilities is the responsibility of Northern Ireland's Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA).[82] Temporary buildings were put in place for 1 January 2021, but in February 2021, the responsible Northern Ireland minister, Gordon Lyons (DUP), ordered officials to stop work on new permanent facilities and to stop recruiting staff for them.[83] In its half yearly financial report 26 August 2021, Irish Continental Group, which operates ferries between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, expressed concern at the lack of implementation of checks on goods arriving into Northern Ireland from Great Britain, as required under the protocol. The company said that the continued absence of these checks (on goods destined for the Republic of Ireland) is causing a distortion in the level playing field, since goods that arrive directly into Republic of Ireland ports from Great Britain are checked on arrival.[84] The implementation of border controls between Great Britain and Northern Ireland was the primary catalyst for the 2021 Northern Ireland riots.
![Huwwara checkpoint, south of the Palestinian city of Nablus.[85]](/en/File:Huwwara_Checkpoint_Palestine.jpg)
Multiple types of internal border controls exist in America. While the American territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands follow the visa policy of the United States, together, they also maintain their own visa waiver programme for certain nationalities.[86] Since the two territories are outside the customs territory of the United States, there are customs inspections when travelling between them, and the rest of America. American Samoa has its own customs and immigration regulations, thus travelling between it and other American jurisdictions involves both customs and immigration inspections. The Virgin Islands are a special case, falling within the American immigration zone and solely following American visa policy, but being a customs free territory. As a result, there are no immigration checks between the two, but travellers arriving in Puerto Rico or the American mainland directly from the Virgin Islands are subject to border control for customs inspection. America also maintains interior checkpoints, similar to those maintained by Bhutan, along its borders with Mexico and Canada, subjecting people to border controls even after they have entered the country.
The Akwesasne nation; with territory in Ontario, Quebec, and New York; features several de facto internal border controls. As a result of protests by Akwesasne residents on their rights to cross the border unimpeded, as provided under the 1795 Jay Treaty, the Canada Border Services Agency closed its post on Cornwall Island, instead requiring travellers to proceed to the checkpoint in the city of Cornwall. As a consequence of the arrangement, residents of the island are required to clear border controls when proceeding North to the Ontarian mainland, as well as when proceeding South to Akwesasne territory in New York, thus constituting internal controls both from a Canadian perspective and from the perspective of the Akwesasne nation. Similarly, travelling between Canada and the Quebec portion of the Akwesasne nation requires driving through the state of New York, meaning that individuals will be required to clear American controls when leaving Quebec proper and to clear Canadian border controls when entering Quebec proper, though Canada does not impose border controls when entering the Quebec portion of the Akwesasne nation. Nevertheless, for residents who assert a Haudenosaunee national identity distinct from Canadian or American citizenship, the intricate network of Canadian and American border controls are seen as a foreign-imposed system of internal border controls, similar to the Israeli checkpoints in Palestinian territory.[87][88]
The city of Hyder, Alaska has also been subject to internal border controls since America chose to stop regulating arrivals in Hyder from British Columbia. Since travellers exiting Hyder into Stewart, British Columbia are subject to Canadian border controls, it is theoretically possible for someone to accidentally enter Hyder from Canada without their travel documents and then to face difficulties since both America and Canada would subject them to border controls that require travel documents. At the same time, however, the northern road connecting Hyder to uninhabited mountain regions of British Columbia is equipped with neither American nor Canadian border controls, meaning that tourists from Canada proceding northwards from Hyder are required to complete Canadian immigration formalities when they return to Stewart despite never having cleared American immigration.
In the past, internal border control measures were utilised by authorities in North America to control the movements of Indigenous or enslaved persons. Such systems typically took the form of an internal passport required for Indigenous or enslaved individuals to travel beyond their reserve or plantation.
In 1885 the "pass system" of internal border controls targeting Indigenous peoples was instituted in Canada. Introduced at the time of the North-West Rebellion, it remained in force until 1951.[89] Any Indigenous person caught outside his Indian reserve without a pass issued by an Indian agent was returned to the reserve or incarcerated.
Throughout the Thirteen Colonies before the Revolutionary War, slaves confined to homes or agricultural plantations, or whose movements were limited by curfews, could be required to furnish written evidence their owner had granted an exemption to permit their free movement. For example the New Hampshire Assembly in 1714 passed "An Act To Prevent Disorders In The Night":[90][91]
Whereas great disorders, insolencies and burglaries are oft times raised and committed in the night time by Indian, Negro, and Molatto Servants and Slaves to the Disquiet and hurt of her Majesty, No Indian, Negro, or Molatto is to be from Home after 9 o'clock.
Notices emphasizing the curfew were published in The New Hampshire Gazette in 1764 and 1771.[90]
Internal passports were required for African Americans in the southern slave states before the American Civil War, for example, an authenticated internal passport dated 1815 was presented to Massachusetts citizen George Barker to allow him to freely travel as a free black man to visit relatives in slave states.[92] After many of these states seceded, forming the Confederate States of America, the Confederate government introduced internal passports for whites as well.[93]
.png)
Tokelau, Niue, and the Cook Islands (Cook Islands Māori: Kūki 'Āirani)[94] maintain independent and less restrictive border controls from New Zealand. The Cook Islands further maintain a separate nationality law. Additionally, border controls for Tokelau are complicated by the fact that the territory is, for the most part, only accessible via Samoa.
In South Africa prior to the end of Apartheid, pass laws were a form of internal passport system designed to segregate the population, manage urbanisation, and allocate migrant labour. Also known as the natives' law, pass laws severely limited the movements of not only black African citizens, but other people as well by requiring or designated areas. Before the 1950s, this legislation largely applied to African men, and attempts to apply it to women in the 1910s and 1950s were met with significant protests. Pass laws were one of the dominant features of the country's apartheid system until it was effectively ended in 1986. The first internal passports in South Africa were introduced on 27 June 1797 by the Earl Macartney in an attempt to prevent Africans from entering the Cape Colony.[95] The Cape Colony was merged with the two Afrikaners republics in southern Africa to form the Union of South Africa in 1910. By this time, versions of pass laws existed elsewhere. A major boost for their utilization was the rise of the mining sector from the 1880s: pass laws provided a convenient means of controlling workers' mobility and enforcing contracts. In 1896 the South African Republic brought in two pass laws which required Africans to carry a metal badge. Only those employed by a master were permitted to remain on the Rand. Those entering a "labour district" needed a special pass which entitled them to remain for three days.[96] The Natives (Urban Areas) Act of 1923 deemed urban areas in South Africa as "white" and required all black African men in cities and towns to carry around permits called "passes" at all times. Anyone found without a pass would be arrested immediately and sent to a rural area. It was replaced in 1945 by the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, which imposed "influx control" on black men and also set up guidelines for removing people deemed to be living idle lives from urban areas. This act outlined requirements for African peoples' "qualification" to reside legally in white metropolitan areas. To do so, they had to have Section 10 rights, based on whether[97]
The Black (Natives) Laws Amendment Act of 1952 amended the 1945 Native Urban Areas Consolidation Act, stipulating that all black people over the age of 16 were required to carry passes and that no black person could stay in an urban area more than 72 hours unless allowed to by Section 10.[98] The Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act of 1952, commonly known as the Pass Laws Act, repealed the many regional pass laws and instituted one nationwide pass law, which made it compulsory for all black South Africans over the age of 16 to carry the "passbook" at all times within white areas. The law stipulated where, when, and for how long a person could remain. [99]
The document was similar to an internal passport, containing details on the bearer such as their fingerprints, photograph, the name of his/her employer, his/her address, how long the bearer had been employed, as well as other identification information. Employers often entered a behavioural evaluation, on the conduct of the pass holder. An employer was defined under the law and could only be a white person. The pass also documented permission requested and denied or granted to be in a certain region and the reason for seeking such permission. Under the terms of the law, any government employee could strike out such entries, basically cancelling the permission to remain in the area. A passbook without a valid entry then allowed officials to arrest and imprison the bearer of the pass. These passes often became the most despised symbols of apartheid. The resistance to the Pass Law led to many thousands of arrests and was the spark that ignited the Sharpeville Massacre on 21 March 1960, and led to the arrest of Robert Sobukwe that day.
Contemporary border control policies are complex and address a variety of distinct phenomena depending on the circumstances and political priorities of the state(s) implementing them. Consequently, there are several aspects of border control which vary in nature and importance from region to region.
.jpg)
Biosecurity refers to measures aimed at preventing the introduction and/or spread of harmful organisms (e.g. viruses, bacteria, etc.) to animals and plants in order to mitigate the risk of transmission of infectious disease. In agriculture, these measures are aimed at protecting food crops and livestock from pests, invasive species, and other organisms not conducive to the welfare of the human population. The term includes biological threats to people, including those from pandemic diseases and bioterrorism. The definition has sometimes been broadened to embrace other concepts, and it is used for different purposes in different contexts.
The most common category of biosecurity policies are quarantine measures adopted to counteract the spread of disease and, when applied as a component of border control, focus primarily on mitigating the entry of infected individuals, plants, or animals into a country.[100] Other aspects of biosecurity related to border control include mandatory vaccination policies for inbound travellers and measures to curtail the risk posed by bioterrorism or invasive species.
Quarantine measures are frequently implemented with regard to the mobility of animals, including both pets and livestock. Notably, in order to reduce the risk of introducing rabies from continental Europe, the United Kingdom used to require that dogs, and most other animals introduced to the country, spend six months in quarantine at an HM Customs and Excise pound. This policy was abolished in 2000 in favour of a scheme generally known as Pet Passports, where animals can avoid quarantine if they have documentation showing they are up to date on their appropriate vaccinations.[101]
In the past, quarantine measures were implemented by European countries in order to curtail the Bubonic Plague and Cholera. In the British Isles, for example, the Quarantine Act 1710 (9 Ann.) established maritime quarantine policies in an era in which strict border control measures as a whole were yet to become mainstream.[102] The first act was called for due to fears that the plague might be imported from Poland and the Baltic states. The second act of 1721 was due to the prevalence of the plague at Marseille and other places in Provence, France. It was renewed in 1733 after a new outbreak in continental Europe, and again in 1743, due to an epidemic in Messina. In 1752 a rigorous quarantine clause was introduced into an act regulating trade with the Levant, and various arbitrary orders were issued during the next twenty years to meet the supposed danger of infection from the Baltic states. Although no plague cases ever came to England during that period, the restrictions on traffic became more stringent, and in 1788 a very strict Quarantine Act was passed, with provisions affecting cargoes in particular. The act was revised in 1801 and 1805, and in 1823–24 an elaborate inquiry was followed by an act making quarantine only at the discretion of the Privy Council, which recognised yellow fever or other highly infectious diseases as calling for quarantine, along with plague. The threat of cholera in 1831 was the last occasion in England of the use of quarantine restrictions. Cholera affected every country in Europe despite all efforts to keep it out. When cholera returned to England in 1849, 1853 and 1865–66, no attempt was made to seal the ports. In 1847 the privy council ordered all arrivals with a clean bill of health from the Black Sea and the Levant to be admitted, provided there had been no case of plague during the voyage and afterwards, the practice of quarantine was discontinued.[103]
In modern maritime law, biosecurity measures for arriving vessels centre around 'pratique', a licence from border control officials permitting a ship to enter port on assurance from the captain that that the vessel is free from contagious disease. The clearance granted is commonly referred to as 'free pratique'. A ship can signal a request for 'pratique' by flying a solid yellow square-shaped flag. This yellow flag is the Q flag in the set of international maritime signal flags.[104] In the event that 'free pratique' is not granted, a vessel will be held in quarantine according to biosecurity rules prevailing at the port of entry until a border control officer inspects the vessel.[105] During the COVID-19 pandemic, a controversy arose as to who granted pratique to the Ruby Princess.[106] A related concept is the 'bill of health', a document issued by officials of a port of departure indicating to the officials of the port of arrival whether it is likely that the ship is carrying a contagious disease, either literally on-board as fomites or via its crewmen or passengers. As defined in a consul's handbook from 1879:
A bill of health is a document issued by the consul or the public authorities of the port which a ship sails from, descriptive of the health of the port at the time of the vessel's clearance. A clean bill of health certifies that at the date of its issue no infectious disease was known to exist either in the port or its neighbourhood. A suspected or touched bill of health reports that rumours were in circulation that an infectious disease had appeared but that the rumour had not been confirmed by any known cases. A foul bill of health or the absence of a clean bill of health implies that the place the vessel cleared from was infected with a contagious disease. The two latter cases would render the vessel liable to quarantine.[107]
Another category of biosecurity measures adopted by border control organisations is mandatory vaccination. As a result of the prevalence of Yellow Fever across much of the African continent, a significant portion of countries in the region require arriving passengers to present an International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (Carte Jaune) certifying that they have received the Yellow Fever vaccine. A variety of other countries require travellers who have visited areas where Yellow Fever is endemic to present a certificate in order to clear border checkpoints as a means of preventing the spread of the disease. Prior to the emergence of COVID-19, Yellow Fever was the primary human disease subjected to de facto vaccine passport measures by border control authorities around the world. Similar measures are in place with regard to Polio and meningococcal meningitis in regions where those diseases are endemic and countries bordering those regions. Prior to the eradication of Smallpox, similar Carte Jaune requirements were in force for that disease around the world.
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, biosecurity measures have become a highly visible aspect of border control across the globe. Most notably, quarantine and mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for international travellers. Together with a decreased willingness to travel, the implementation of biosecurity measures has had a negative economic and social impact on the travel industry.[108] Slow travel increased in popularity during the pandemic, with tourists visiting fewer destinations during their trips.[109][110]
Biosecurity measures such as restrictions on cross-border travel, the introduction of mandatory vaccination for international travellers, and the adoption of quarantine or mandatory testing measures have helped to contain the spread of COVID-19.[111] While test-based border screening measures may prove effective under certain circumstances, they may fail to detect a significant quantity positive cases if only conducted upon arrival without follow-up. A minimum 10-day quarantine may be beneficial in preventing the spread of COVID-19 and may be more effective if combined with an additional control measure like border screening.[111] A study in Science found that travel restrictions could delay the initial arrival of COVID-19 in a country, but that they produced only modest overall effects unless combined with domestic infection prevention and control measures to considerably reduce transmissions.[112] (This is consistent with prior research on influenza and other communicable diseases.[113][114]) Travel bans early in the pandemic were most effective for isolated locations, such as small island nations.[114]
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many jurisdictions across the globe introduced biosecurity measures on internal borders. This ranged from quarantine measures imposed upon individuals crossing state lines within America to prohibitions on interstate travel in Australia.
Each country has its own laws and regulations for the import and export of goods into and out of a country, which its customs authority enforces. The import or export of some goods may be restricted or forbidden, in which case customs controls enforce such policies.[115] Customs enforcement at borders can also entail collecting excise tax and preventing the smuggling of dangerous or illegal goods. A customs duty is a tariff or tax on the importation (usually) or exportation (unusually) of goods.
In many countries, border controls for arriving passengers at many international airports and some road crossings are separated into red and green channels in order to prioritise customs enforcement.[116][117] Within the European Union’s common customs area, airports may operate additional blue channels for passengers arriving from within that area. For such passengers, border control may focus specifically on prohibited items and other goods that are not covered by the common policy. Luggage tags for checked luggage travelling within the EU are green-edged so they may be identified.[118][119] In most EU member states, travellers coming from other EU countries within the Schengen Area can use the green lane, although airports outside the Schengen Area or with frequent flights arriving from jurisdictions within Schengen but outside the European Union may use blue channels for convenience and efficiency.
A customs area is an area designated for storage of commercial goods that have not cleared border controls for customs purposes. It is surrounded by a customs border. Commercial goods not yet cleared through customs are often stored in a type of customs area known as a bonded warehouse, until processed or re-exported.[120][121] Ports authorised to handle international cargo generally include recognised bonded warehouses.
For the purpose of customs duties, goods within the customs area are treated as being outside the country. This allows easy transshipment to a third country without customs authorities being involved.[120] For this reason, customs areas are usually carefully controlled and fenced to prevent smuggling. However, the area is still territorially part of the country, so the goods within the area are subject to other local laws (for example drug laws and biosecurity regulations), and thus may be searched, impounded or turned back.
The term is also sometimes used to define an area (usually composed of several countries) which form a customs union, a customs territory, or to describe the area at airports and ports where travellers are checked through customs.
Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures are customs measures to protect humans, animals, and plants from diseases, pests, or contaminants. The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures is one of the final documents approved at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. It applies to all sanitary (relating to animals) and phytosanitary (relating to plants) (SPS) measures that may have a direct or indirect impact on international trade. The SPS agreement includes a series of understandings (trade disciplines) on how SPS measures will be established and used by countries when they establish, revise, or apply their domestic laws and regulations. Per the agreement, states agree to base their SPS standards on science, and as guidance for their actions, the agreement encourages countries to use standards set by international standard setting organisations. The SPS agreement seeks to ensure that SPS measures will not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate against trade of certain other members nor be used to disguise trade restrictions. Per the agreement, countries maintain the sovereign right to provide the level of health protection they deem appropriate, but agree that this right will not be misused for protectionist purposes nor result in unnecessary trade barriers. A rule of equivalency rather than equality applies to the use of SPS measures.
The 2012 classification of non-tariff measures (NTMs) developed by the Multi-Agency Support Team (MAST), a working group of eight international organisations, classifies SPS measures as one of 16 non-tariff measure (NTM) chapters. In this classification, SPS measures are classified as chapter A and defined as "Measures that are applied to protect human or animal life from risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in their food; to protect human life from plant- or animal-carried diseases; to protect animal or plant life from pests, diseases, or disease-causing organisms; to prevent or limit other damage to a country from the entry, establishment or spread of pests; and to protect biodiversity".[122] Examples of SPS are tolerance limits for residues, restricted use of substances, labelling requirements related to food safety, hygienic requirements and quarantine requirements.
In certain countries, sanitary and phytosanitary measures focuses extensively on curtailing and regulating the import of foreign agricultural products in order to protect domestic ecosystems. For example, Australian border controls restrict most (if not all) food products, certain wooden products and other similar items.[123][124][125] Similar restrictions exist in Canada, America and New Zealand.
Common at international airports and occasionally at seaports or land crossings, duty-free shops sell products tax-free to customers who have cleared exit border controls prior to boarding an international flight and, in some airports, to passengers arriving from overseas. Most countries impose limits on how much of each type of duty-free goods, may be purchased by each passenger. The airport with the most duty-free sales is Seoul Incheon Airport with US$1.85 billion in 2016.[126] Dubai International Airport is second, recording transactions worth $1.82 billion in 2016.[127]
Border security measures are border control policies adopted by a country or group of countries to fight against unauthorised travel or trade across its borders, to limit illegal immigration, combat transnational crime, and prevent wanted criminals from travelling.[128]
In India, which maintains free movement with Nepal and Bhutan, border security focuses primarily on the Bangladeshi, Pakistani, and Myanmar borders. In order to deter unlawful immigration and drug trafficking[129] from Bangladesh, India is constructing the India-Bangladesh barrier. On the Pakistani border, the Border Security Force aims to prevent the infiltration of Indian territory by terrorists from Pakistan and other countries in the west (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.). In contrast, India's border with Myanmar is porous and the 2021 military coup in Myanmar saw an influx of refugees seeking asylum in border states including Mizoram.[130] The refoulement of Rohingya refugees is a contentious aspect of India's border control policy vis à vis Myanmar [131]
American border security policy is largely centred on the country's border with Mexico. Security along this border is composed of many distinct elements; including physical barriers, patrol routes, lighting, and border patrol personnel. Former president Donald Trump's proposal to build a new wall along the border formed a major feature of his 2016 presidential campaign and, over the course of his presidency, his administration spent approximately US$15 billion on the project, with US$5 billion appropriated from US Customs and Border Protection, US$6.3 billion appropriated from anti-narcotics initiative funded by congress, and US$3.6 billion appropriated from the American military.[132] Members of both the Democratic Republican parties who opposed President Trump's border control policies, regarded the border wall as unnecessary or undesirable, arguing that other measures would be more effective at reducing illegal immigration than building a wall, including tackling the economic issues that lead to immigration being a relevant issue altogether, border surveillance or an increase in the number of customs agents.[133]
Similar to India's barrier with Bangladesh and the proposed wall between America and Mexico, Iran has constructed a wall on its frontier with Pakistan. The wall aims to reduce unauthorised border crossings[134] and stem the flow of drugs,[135] and is also a response to terrorist attacks, notably the one in the Iranian border town of Zahedan on 17 February 2007, which killed thirteen people, including nine Iranian Revolutionary Guard officials.[136]
Border security has, over the first two decades of the century, also become a major concern in the Schengen Area, specifically as a result of the European migrant crisis. The walls at Melilla and at Ceuta on Spain’s border with Morocco are a part of the trend towards increasing border security in response to an unprecedented rise in both refugees and economic migrants from countries in Sub Saharan Africa. Similar, though less drastic, measures have been taken on the Schengen area’s borders with Turkey in response to the refugee crisis created in Syria by terrorist organisations such as Daesh and the Syrian Free Army. The creation of European Union’s collective border security organisation, Frontex, is another aspect of the bloc’s growing focus on border security. Within the Schengen Area, border security has become an especially prominent priority for the Hungarian government under right-wing strongman[137][138] Viktor Orbán. Hungary completed the construction of 175 kilometres of fencing between with Serbia in September 2015 and on the border with Croatia in October 2015 to stop unauthorised border crossings.[139] In April 2016, Hungarian government announced construction of reinforcements of the barrier, which it described as "temporary".[140] In July 2016, nearly 1,300 migrants were "stuck" on the Serbian side of the border.[141] In August 2016, Orbán announced that Hungary will build another larger barrier on its southern border.[142] On 28 April 2017, the Hungarian government announced it had completed a second fence, 155 kilometres long with Serbia.[143][144] On 24 September 2015, Hungary began building fence on its border with Slovenia, in the area around Tornyiszentmiklós–Pince border crossing.[145] The razor wire obstacle was removed two days later.[146] As of March 2016, everything is in place if Hungary decides to build a border barrier on the Hungarian–Romanian border – the military is "only waiting for the command from the government".[147]
Another example of border security is the Israeli anti-tunnel barrier along its border with the Gaza Strip, a part of the State of Palestine under the control of Hamas (a militant group backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, a Qatari-sponsored. In order to curtail Hamas’s ability to build tunnels into Israeli-controlled territory, Israel have built a slurry wall. Similarly, Saudi Arabia has begun construction of a border barrier or fence between its territory and Yemen to prevent the unauthorized movement of people and goods. The difference between the countries' economic situations means that many Yemenis head to Saudi Arabia to find work. Saudi Arabia does not have a barrier with its other neighbours in the Gulf Cooperation Council, whose economies are more similar. In 2006 Saudi Arabia proposed constructing a security fence along the entire length of its 900 kilometre long desert border with Iraq in a multimillion-dollar project to secure the Kingdom's borders in order to improve internal security, control illegal immigration, and bolster its defences against external threats.[148] As of July 2009 it was reported that Saudis will pay $3.5 billion for security fence.[149] The combined wall and ditch will be 965 kilometres long and include five layers of fencing, watch towers, night-vision cameras, and radar cameras and manned by 30,000 troops.[150] Elsewhere in Europe, the Republic of Macedonia began erecting a fence on its border with Greece in November 2015.[151] On the land border between Palestine and the portion of the Sinai peninsula administered by the African nation of Egypt, the latter began construction of a border barrier in 2009 prompted by concern that militant organisations were making use of the Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels to move weapons and personnel between Gaza and Egypt.[152]
In 2003, Botswana began building a 480 kilometre long electric fence along its border with Zimbabwe. The official reason for the fence is to stop the spread of foot-and-mouth disease among livestock. Zimbabweans argue that the height of the fence is clearly intended to keep out people. Botswana has responded that the fence is designed to keep out cattle, and to ensure that entrants have their shoes disinfected at legal border crossings. Botswana also argued that the government continues to encourage legal movement into the country. Zimbabwe was unconvinced, and the barrier remains a source of tension.[153]
A Border checkpoint is a place where goods or individuals moving across borders are inspected for compliance with border control measures. Access-controlled borders often have a limited number of checkpoints where they can be crossed without legal sanctions. Arrangements or treaties may be formed to allow or mandate less restrained crossings (e.g. the Schengen Agreement). Land border checkpoints (land ports of entry) can be contrasted with the customs and immigration facilities at seaports, international airports, and other ports of entry.
Checkpoints generally serve two purposes:
A border checkpoint at which travellers are permitted to enter a jurisdiction is known as a port of entry. International airports are usually ports of entry, as are road and rail crossings on a land border. Seaports can be used as ports of entry only if a dedicated customs presence is posted there. The choice of whether to become a port of entry is up to the civil authority controlling the port.
An airport of entry is an airport that provides customs and immigration services for incoming flights. These services allow the airport to serve as an initial port of entry for foreign visitors arriving in a country. While the terms airport of entry and international airport are generally used interchangeably, not all international airports qualify as airports of entry since international airports without any immigration or customs facilities exist in the Schengen Area whose members have eliminated border controls with each other. Airports of entry are usually larger than domestic airports and often feature longer runways and facilities to accommodate the heavier aircraft commonly used for international and intercontinental travel. International airports often also host domestic flights, which often help feed both passengers and cargo into international ones (and vice-versa). Buildings, operations and management have become increasingly sophisticated since the mid-20th century, when international airports began to provide infrastructure for international civilian flights. Detailed technical standards have been developed to ensure safety and common coding systems implemented to provide global consistency. The physical structures that serve millions of individual passengers and flights are among the most complex and interconnected in the world. By the second decade of the 21st century, there were over 1,200 international airports and almost two billion international passengers along with 50 million tonnes of cargo passing through them annually.
In order to exempt passengers transitting between international flights from clearing border checkpoints, most international airports outside North America feature a "sterile lounge", an area after security checkpoints within which passengers are free to move freely and which is generally deemed to be outside the immigration and customs area of the country in which the airport situated. In addition to employees, only processed passengers with a valid ticket are allowed inside the sterile lounge.[156]
A ‘Quilantan’ or ‘Wave Through’ entry is a phenomenon at American border checkpoints authorising a form of non-standard but legal entry without any inspection of travel documents. It occurs when the border security personnel present at a border crossing choose to summarily admit some number of persons without performing a standard interview or document examination.[157]
Typically this can occur when an official border crossing is busy and an immigration officer waves a car through without first checking all passengers for their travel documents. If an individual can prove that they were waved through immigration in this manner, then they are considered to have entered with inspection despite not having answered any questions or received a passport entry stamp.[158]
This definition of legal entry does not apply to situations where foreigners entered America but have not crossed at a legal, manned border station. Thus it does not provide a path to legal residency for those who have entered America by crossing accidental gaps in the borders around geological formations.[159]
Border zones are areas near borders that have special restrictions on movement. Governments may forbid unauthorised entry to or exit from border zones and restrict property ownership in the area. The zones function as buffer zones specifically monitored by border patrols in order to prevent illegal entry or exit. Restricting entry aids in pinpointing illegal intruders, since by nulla poena sine lege ("no penalty without a law"), any person could be present in the area near the border, and illegal intruders, such as illegal immigrants, smugglers or spies could blend in. However, if all unauthorised presence is forbidden, their mere presence of intruders allows the authorities to arrest them. Border zones between hostile states can be heavily militarised, with minefields, barbed wire and watchtowers. Some border zones are designed to prevent illegal immigration or emigration, and do not have many restrictions but may operate checkpoints to check immigration status. In most places, a border vista is usually included and/or required. In some nations, movement inside a border zone without a licence is an offence and will result in arrest. No probable cause is required as mere presence inside the zone is an offence, if it is intentional.[160] Even with a licence to enter, photography, making fires, and carrying of firearms and hunting are prohibited.
Examples of international border zones are the Border Security Zone of Russia and the Finnish border zone on the Finnish–Russian border. There are also intra-country zones such as the Cactus Curtain surrounding the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, the Korean Demilitarised Zone along the North Korea-South Korea demarcation line and the Frontier Closed Area in Hong Kong. Important historical examples are the Wire of Death set up by the German Empire to control the Belgium–Netherlands border and the Iron Curtain, a set of border zones maintained by the Soviet Union and its satellite states along their borders with Western states. One of the most militarised parts was the restricted zone of the inner German border. While initially and officially the zone was for border security, eventually it was engineered to prevent escape from the Soviet sphere into the West. Ultimately, the Eastern Bloc governments resorted to using lethal countermeasures against those trying to cross the border, such as mined fences and orders to shoot anyone trying to cross into the West. The restrictions on building and habitation made the area a "green corridor", today established as the European Green Belt.
In the area stretching inwards from its internal border with the mainland, Hong Kong maintains a Frontier Closed Area out of bounds to those without special authorisation. The area was established in the 1950s when Hong Kong was under British administration as a consequence of the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory prior to the Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997. The purposes of the area were to prevent illegal immigration and smuggling; smuggling had become prevalent as a consequence of the Korean War. Today, under the one country, two systems policy, the area continues to be used to curtail unauthorised migration to Hong Kong and the smuggling of goods in either direction.
.jpg)
As a result of the partition of the Korean peninsula by America and the Soviet Union after World War II, and exacerbated by the subsequent Korean War, there is a Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) spanning the de facto border between North and South Korea. The DMZ follows the effective boundaries as of the end of the Korean War in 1953. Similarly to the Frontier Closed Area in Hong Kong, this zone and the defence apparatus that exists on both sides of the border serve to curtail unauthorised passage between the two sides. In South Korea, there is an additional fenced-off area between the Civilian Control Line and the start of the DMZ, which is intended to prevent civilians from even approaching the actual DMZ from the South Korean side.
A border vista or boundary vista is a defined cleared space between two areas of foliage located at an international border intended to provide a clear demarcation line between the two areas. Border vistas are most commonly found along undefended international boundary lines, where border security is not as much of a necessity and a built barrier is undesired, and are a treaty requirement for certain borders.
An example of a border vista is a six-metre cleared space around unguarded portions of the Canada–United States border.[161]
Similar clearings along the border line are provided for by many international treaties. For example, the 2006 border management treaty between Russia and China provides for a 15 metre cleared strip along the two nations' border.[162]
Border control in many countries in the Greater India region prioritise mitigating trade in narcotics. For instance, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia impose mandatory death sentences on individuals caught smuggling restricted substances across their borders. For example, Muhammad Ridzuan Ali was executed in Singapore on 19 May 2017 for drug trafficking.[163] India and Malaysia are focusing resources on eliminating drug smuggling from Myanmar and Thailand respectively. The issue stems largely from the high output of dangerous and illegal drugs in the Golden Triangle as well as in regions further west such as Afghanistan.
A similar problem exists east of the Pacific, and has resulted in countries such as Mexico and America tightening border control in response to the northward flow of illegal substances from regions such as Colombia. The Mexican Drug War and similar cartel activity in neighbouring areas has exacerbated the problem.
Immigration law refers to the national statutes, regulations, and legal precedents governing immigration into and deportation from a country. Strictly speaking, it is distinct from other matters such as naturalisation and citizenship, although they are often conflated. Immigration laws vary around the world, as well as according to the social and political climate of the times, as acceptance of immigrants sways from the widely inclusive to the deeply nationalist and isolationist. Countries frequently maintain laws which regulate both the rights of entry and exit as well as internal rights, such as the duration of stay, freedom of movement, and the right to participate in commerce or government. National laws regarding the immigration of citizens of that country are regulated by international law. While the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mandates[164] that all countries allow entry to their own citizens, this principle is not always respected in practice. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia adopted a policy of denying entry to all individuals in particularly affected jurisdictions, including Australian citizens and permanent residents.[165][166] Similarly, while states within the Schengen Area typically permit freedom of movement across borders, many states within the area implemented ad hoc border controls during the pandemic.
Immigration policy is the aspect of border control concerning the transit of people into a country, especially those that intend to stay and work in the country. Taxation, tariff and trade rules set out what goods immigrants may bring with them, and what services they may perform while temporarily in the country. Investment policy sometimes permits wealthy immigrants to invest in businesses in exchange for favourable treatment and eventual naturalisation. Agricultural policy may make exemptions for migrant farm workers, who typically enter a country only for the harvest season and then return home to a country or region in the Global South (such as Mexico or Jamaica from where America and Canada, respectively, often import temporary agricultural labour).[167] An important aspect of immigration policy is the treatment of refugees,[168] more or less helpless or stateless people who throw themselves on the mercy of the state they try to enter, seeking refuge from actual or purported poor treatment in their country of origin. Asylum is sometimes granted to those who face persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
Certain countries adopt immigration policies designed to be favourable towards members of diaspora communities with a connection to the country. For example, the Indian government confers Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) status on foreign citizens of Indian origin to live and work indefinitely in India. OCI status was introduced in response to demands for dual citizenship by the Indian diaspora, particularly in countries with large populations of Indian origin. It was introduced by The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2005 in August 2005.[169] In the ASEAN region, a large portion of the Singaporean, Malaysian, and Bruneian population hold OCI status. Large OCI communities also exist in North America, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as in many African nations (particularly South Africa, Madagascar, and members of the East African Community). OCI status exempts holders from immigration controls generally imposed upon others of the same nationality.
Similarly, Poland issues the Karta Polaka to citizens of certain northeast European countries with Polish ancestry.
A British Ancestry visa is a document issued by the United Kingdom to Commonwealth citizens with a grandparent born in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands or Isle of Man who wish to work in the United Kingdom. Similar to OCI status, it exempts members of the country’s diaspora from usual immigration controls. It is used mainly by young Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and South Africans of British descent coming to UK to work and as a base to explore Europe.[170]
Some nations recognise a right of return for people with ancestry in that country. A notable example of this is the right of Sephardi Jews to acquire Spanish nationality by virtue of their community’s Spanish origins. Similar exemptions to immigration controls exist for people of Armenian origin seeking to acquire Armenian citizenship. Ghana, similarly, grants an indefinite right to stay in Ghana to members of the African diaspora regardless of citizenship.[171]
South Korean immigration policy is relatively unique in that, as a consequence of its claim over the territory currently administered by North Korea, citizens of North Korea are regarded by the South as its own citizens by birth.[172] Consequently, North Korean refugees in China often attempt to travel to countries such as Thailand which, while not offering asylum to North Koreans, classifies them as unauthorised immigrants and deports them to South Korea instead of North Korea.[173][174][175] At the same time, this policy has operated to prevent pro-North Korea Zainichi Koreans recognised by Japan as Chōsen-seki from entering South Korea without special permission from the South Korean authorities as, despite being regarded as citizens of the Republic of Korea and members of the Korean diaspora, they generally refuse to exercise that status.[176]
In various special immigration areas around the world, border control policies can range from severely limiting migration, as in Greece's Mount Athos, to allowing most types of migration, such as the free migration[n] policy in force in Svalbard. Similar policies are in force for Iran's Kish and Qeshm islands, and for Iraqi Kurdistan.
In certain cases, countries adopt border control policies imposing reduced border controls for frequent travellers intending to remain within a border area. For example, the relaxed border controls maintained by Bhutan for those not proceeding past Phuentsholing and certain other border cities enable travellers to enter without going through any document check whatsoever. The Border Crossing Card issued by American authorities to Mexican nationals enables Mexicans to enter border areas without a passport.[o] Both America and Bhutan maintain interior checkposts to enforce compliance. Similarly, Schengen states which share an external land border with a non-Schengen state are authorised by virtue of the EU Regulation 1931/2006 to conclude or maintain bilateral agreements with neighbouring third countries for the purpose of implementing a local border traffic regime.[180] Such agreements define a border area on either side of the border, and provide for the issuance of local border traffic permits to residents of the border area. Permits may be used to cross the EU external border within the border area, are not stamped on crossing the border and must display the holder's name and photograph, as well as a statement that its holder is not authorised to move outside the border area and that any abuse shall be subject to penalties.
China maintains relaxed border controls for individuals lawfully in Hong Kong or Macau to visit the surrounding Pearl River Delta visa-free, provided that the following conditions are met:[181]
Immigrant investor programmes are border control policies that offer permanent residence or citizenship in return for investment.[182][183][184] Immigrant investor programmes originated in the 1980s when tax havens in the Pacific and Caribbean began "cash-for-passport" programmes that facilitated visa-free travel and tax avoidance.[185] Such programmes have sparked controversy in several countries. A lack of demonstrable economic benefits, and security concerns, have been among the most common criticisms. In 2014 the Canadian government suspended their golden visa programme (although, as of 2017, Quebec maintains its own golden visa programme).[186] The implementation of such programmes in Europe has been criticised by the European Parliament,[187] which approved a non-binding resolution that in 2014 declaring that an EU passport, which by definition provides its bearer the right to reside in any EU or EEA jurisdiction, should not have a "price tag".[188]
An open border is the deregulation and or lack of regulation on the movement of persons between nations and jurisdictions, this does not apply to trade or movement between privately owned land areas.[189] Most nations have open borders for travel within their nation of travel, though more authoritarian states may limit the freedom of internal movement of its citizens, as for example in the former USSR. However, only a handful of nations have deregulated open borders with other nations, an example of this being European countries under the Schengen Agreement or the open Belarus-Russia border.[190] Open borders used to be very common amongst all nations, however this became less common after the First World War, which led to the regulation of open borders, making them less common and no longer feasible for most industrialised nations.[191]
Open borders are the norm for borders between subdivisions within the boundaries of sovereign states, though some countries do maintain internal border controls (for example between the People's Republic of China mainland and the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau, or between the United States and the unincorporated territories of Guam, the Northern Marianas and American Samoa, and the Minor Outlying Islands). Open borders are also usual between member states of federations, though (very rarely) movement between member states may be controlled in exceptional circumstances.[p] Federations, confederations and similar multi-national unions typically maintain external border controls through a collective border control system, though they sometimes have open borders with other non-member states through special international agreements – such as between Schengen Agreement countries as mentioned above.
Presently, open border agreements of various types are in force in several areas around the world, as outlined below.
Central America
The Central America-4 Border Control Agreement abolishes border controls for land travel between El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. However, this does not apply to air travel.
Union State of Russia and Belarus
The Union State of Russia and Belarus is a supranational union of Russia and Belarus, which eliminates all border controls between the two nations. Before a visa agreement was signed in 2020, each country maintained its own visa policies, thus resulting in non-citizens of the two countries generally being barred from travelling directly between the two. However, since the visa agreement was signed, each side recognises the other's visas, which means that third-country citizens can enter both countries with a visa from either country.[192]
Western Europe
The two most significant free travel areas in Western Europe are the Schengen Area, in which very little if any border control is generally visible, and the Common Travel Area (CTA), which partially eliminates such controls for nationals of the United Kingdom and Ireland. Between countries in the Schengen Area, and to an extent within the CTA on the British Isles, internal border control is often virtually unnoticeable, and often only performed by means of random car or train searches in the hinterland, while controls at borders with non-member states may be rather strict.
.jpg)
Asia and Oceania
India and Nepal maintain a similar arrangement to the CTA and the Union State. Indians and Nepalis are not subject to any migration controls in each other's countries and there are few controls on land travel by citizens across the border. India and Bhutan also have a similar system. The border between Jaigaon, in the Indian state of West Bengal, and the city of Phuentsholing is essentially open, and although there are internal checkpoints, Indians are allowed to proceed throughout Bhutan with a voter’s ID or an identity slip from the Indian consulate in Phuentsholing. Similarly, Bhutanese passport holders enjoy free movement in India.
Whilst not as liberal as the policies concerning the Indo-Nepalese and Indo-Bhutanese borders, Thailand and Cambodia have begun issuing combined visas to certain categories of tourists applying at specific Thai or Cambodian embassies and consulates in order to enable freer border crossings between the two countries.[193] The policy is currently in force for nationals of America and several European (primarily EU) and GCC and Oceanian countries as well as for Indian and Chinese nationals residing in Singapore.[194]
Similar to the agreement between India and Nepal, Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement between Australia and New Zealand is a free movement agreement citizens of each country to travel freely between them and allowing citizens and some permanent residents to reside, visit, work, study in the other country for an indefinite period, with some restrictions.[195][196] The arrangement came into effect in 1973, and allows citizens of each country to reside and work in the other country, with some restrictions. Other details of the arrangement have varied over time. From 1 July 1981, all people entering Australia (including New Zealand citizens) have been required to carry a passport. Since 1 September 1994 Australia, has had a universal visa requirement, and to specifically cater for the continued free movement of New Zealanders to Australia, the Special Category Visa was introduced for New Zealanders.
Gulf Cooperation Council
Members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC, allow each other's citizens freedom of movement in an arrangement similar to the CTA and to that between India and Nepal. Such benefits are partially suspended for Qataris as a result of the Saudi-led blockade of the country.
An international zone is a type of extraterritorial area not fully subject to any country’s border control policies. The term most commonly refers to the areas of international airports after border exit controls or before border entry controls. These areas often contain duty-free shopping, but they are not fully extraterritorial. It is usually possible to transfer between flights without needing either the passport check or visa otherwise needed to enter the country. In areas of conflict there may be international zones called green zones that form protective enclaves to keep diplomats safe. Countries in conflict may also have international zones separating each other. Some of the international zones are subject to international law.
The international zone in an international airport is the area where arriving international passengers have not formally entered the country by clearing arrival customs and immigration controls, and departing passengers have formally exited the country by clearing exit immigration control. Transit passengers can usually take connecting international flights in the international zone without clearing customs and immigration controls, and in most cases do not require a visa.[197][198][199] Some countries, however, require transit passengers of certain nationalities to hold a direct airside transit visa[200] even when they would not need to pass through border controls. In addition, some countries, notably Canada, Russia and South Africa, perform document checks by border officers in the international transit corridor, for which a visa may (e.g. Canada) or may not (e.g. Russia) be required.
Two major exceptions are America and Canada, where airports typically have no international transit zones. All passengers arriving on international flights are subject to customs and immigration inspections. Nationals of countries other than America and Canada at an American airport requires at least a C-1 transit visa, or ESTA for eligible travellers. Meanwhile transiting at a Canadian airport for nationals of countries other than Canada or America generally requires a visa or Electronic Travel Authorisation except for individuals proceeding to or from America who qualify for the China Transit Programme or Transit Without Visa Programme.
A common feature of the international zone is duty-free shopping for departing and transit passengers, and in some cases arriving passengers subject to duty-free allowances.
International zones in airports are fully under the jurisdiction of the country where they are located and local laws apply. Persons caught committing an unlawful act (e.g. possession of contraband such as illegal drugs) in the international zone are liable for prosecution.
_1.JPG)
.png)
Different countries impose varying travel document regulations and requirements as part of their border control policies and these may vary based on the traveller's mode of transport. For instance, whilst America does not subject passengers departing by land or most boats to any border control, it does require that passengers departing by air hold a valid passport (or certain specific passport-replacing documents). Even though travellers might not be required to have a passport to enter a certain country, they will be required to have a valid passport booklet (booklet only, U.S. Passport Card not accepted)to board their flight in order to satisfy American immigration authorities at departure.[226]
.jpg)
Canada requires any Canadian Permanent Residents entering the country by air to use their Permanent Resident Card or a special document authorising their return.[227] No such requirement is imposed on a permanent resident entering by land or sea. Canadian citizens are prohibited from using a foreign passport to enter the country.[228]
Other countries, including most countries in Western Europe and China, permit (or in China's case require) citizens to utilise national identity cards to clear immigration when travelling between adjacent jurisdictions.
The International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP), also known as the Carte Jaune, is an official vaccination report created by the World Health Organisation (WHO).[229] As a travel document, it is a kind of medical passport that is recognised internationally and may be required for entry to certain countries where there are increased health risks for travellers (see section on biosecurity).[229]
Various schemes for health passports or vaccination certificates have been proposed for people who have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The IATA Travel Pass application for smartphone, introduced by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in early 2021 is a mobile app designed to standardise the health verification process confirming whether aeroplane passengers have been vaccinated against, or tested negative for, COVID-19 prior to travel. The application is intended to eventually replace the Carte Jaune and to facilitate the verification of vaccination for Yellow Fever and other diseases prescribed by border control policies in various countries. Trials of the application are carried out by a number of airlines including Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Qatar Airways, Etihad and Air New Zealand.[230][231]
Due to the prevalence of counterfeit certificates in some places, several countries, including Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Nigeria, have been developing digital certificates to be used in conjunction with and to authenticate an ICVP.[232][233] As of July 2019, Nigeria requires its citizens to have its digital "e-Yellow Card" for travel outside the country. The card has a QR code that can be scanned to verify its validity. This requirement does not affect travellers from other countries with valid ICVPs, but those arriving in Nigeria who haven't been vaccinated for yellow fever may receive the vaccine and the e-Yellow Card upon arrival.[234][235][236]
A seafarers' identity document is a travel document issued to individuals authorised to serve as crew members aboard vessels engaged in international voyages. Like an ordinary passport, it contains its holder's personal information and is generally issued by the same authorities. Additionally, it contains information as to its bearer's qualifications to serve on a ship's crew. In certain jurisdictions, of seafarers' identity documents are entitled to simplified visa requirements when travelling on duty. For instance, mainland China maintains a simplified visa regime for holders of certain countries' seafarers' identity documents travelling on duty.
A laissez-passer (French for "let pass") is a travel document issued by a national government or certain international organisations. A laissez-passer is often for one-way travel to the issuing country for humanitarian reasons only such as Restoring Family Links. Some national governments issue laissez-passers to their own nationals as emergency passports. Others issue them to people who are stateless, or who are unable to obtain a passport from their own government, or whose government is not recognised by the issuing country. During the COVID-19 pandemic, they were issued by French consulates to people who would otherwise be unable to enter the country due to travel restrictions, but were allowed to enter for a single trip on compassionate grounds.[237]
Historically, laissez-passers were commonly issued during wartime and at other periods, literally acting as a pass to allow travel to specific areas, or out of war zones or countries for various officials, diplomatic agents, other representatives or citizens of third countries. In these contexts, a laissez-passer would frequently include quite specific and limited freedom of movement. The form and issuing authority would be more or less standardized, depending on the circumstances. For example, during the early 1950s, the Iraqi government granted permission to its 120,000 Jewish citizens to leave (Operation Ezra and Nehemiah), conditional on their renouncing their citizenship and leaving behind all their properties and assets. The travel document that was issued was the laissez-passer, since an Iraqi passport was no longer possible.[238]
The most common laissez-passer is the United Nations laissez-passer issued by the United Nations under the provisions of Article VII of the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations[239] in its offices in New York and Geneva, as well as by the International Labour Organisation (ILO).[240] The UNLP is issued to UN and ILO staff as well as staff members of international organizations such as the WHO, the IAEA, the World Tourism Organisation, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation Preparatory Commission, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the World Bank. The document is written in English and French, working languages of United Nations. The UNLP is a valid travel document, which can be used like a national passport (in connection with travel on official missions only). However, UNLP holders often encounter immigration officials who are unfamiliar with the document and require them to show a national passport in addition.[241] As with national passports, some countries/regions accept it for entry without the need for a visa (e.g., Turkmenistan,[242] Kenya, the United Kingdom, Schengen Area, Lebanon, etc.), while other countries may require a visa before it can be accepted for entry to the country (depending on the nationality of the UNLP holder).
Similarly, the European Union laissez-passer is issued to civil servants and members of the institutions of the European Union. It is proof of privileges and immunities the holders enjoy. The document is valid in all countries of the European Union as well as in over 100 other countries. In 2006, the European Commission issued or renewed 2,200 laissez-passer, and other agencies may issue the document as well.[243]
The Interpol Travel Document is a document similar to the United Nations and European Union laissez-passer and is issued to Interpol officers for travel to Interpol member countries. They are intended to reduce response times for personnel deployed to assist with transnational criminal investigations, major events or emergency situations by waiving normal visa requirements.[244] The travel documents consist of an e-Passport Booklet and an e-Identification Card identifying the holder as an Interpol officer, granting them special immigration status when travelling on official Interpol duties to participating member countries.[245]
Certain jurisdictions permit the use of national identity cards to clear border controls. For instance, when travelling between India and Nepal or Bhutan, Indian citizens may utilise national voter ID cards, ration cards, or national identity cards. Indian citizens may also obtain identity slips at the Indian consulate in Phuentsholing if they intend to proceed beyond city limits as Phuentsholing, the financial capital of Bhutan, is de facto within India’s visa and customs area. When travelling to India, citizens of Nepal and Bhutan can utilise similar documents. Children may use birth certificates as proof of identity.
In western Europe, travel using identity cards is relatively common for citizens of the European Economic Area and adjacent territories. This includes travel to and from Turkey for certain citizens of other countries in western Europe. Within the Schengen Area, there are limited border controls in place and national identity cards may be used to clear them. Similarly, many Mercosur countries reciprocally permit travel using identity cards. In North America, American citizens may travel to Canada or certain islands in the Caribbean using the passport card while children holding Canadian or American citizenship may travel between America and Canada using birth certificates under certain circumstances.
An Enhanced Driving Licence is a document issued by provincial and state authorities in Canada and America that enables its bearer to clear land border controls along the border between the two countries. It is not valid for air travel and does not permit its holder to clear border controls at airports. It also serves as a valid driving licence. Certain provinces and states may issue similar enhanced versions of regional identity cards issued to individuals who do not drive. Similarly, a Border Crossing Card (BCC) is an identity document issued by the American government to nationals of Mexico. As a standalone document, the BCC allows its holder to visit the border areas of the United States when entering by land or sea directly from Mexico for up to 30 days[246][247] and, when presented with a valid Mexican passport, functions as a B1/B2 visa for entry to any part of the United States by any means of transportation.[248][249]
Some countries issue travel documents to permanent residents (i.e. foreign citizens permitted to reside there indefinitely) or other non-citizens, usually for re-entry but also occasionally valid for international travel.
The American Re-Entry Permit is an example of such a document. Valid for international travel, it is issued to lawful permanent residents temporarily expatriating overseas. Unlike the ”Green Card” issued to all permanent residents, this document is not mandatory. The American “Green Card”, on its own or in conjunction with a passport, is valid for international travel albeit not to the same extent as the re-entry permit. Both documents can be utilised to clear American border controls regardless of the bearers nationality, thus resulting in America not requiring permanent residents to hold a passport from their home country in order to remain lawfully present or to lawfully enter.
Singapore issues national identity cards to permanent residents in the same manner as it does to citizens, but additionally requires any permanent resident travelling abroad to hold a valid electronic re-entry permit and a passport or other travel document from their home country. Similarly, Hong Kong and Macau issue permanent resident cards to all permanent residents including those without Chinese citizenship. While Canada does not issue a mandatory national identity card to its citizens, it issues the Canada permanent resident card, which serves as a valid travel document for Canadian permanent residents to clear border controls in the country.
Japan issues a re-entry permit for individuals holding permanent resident status. This document is issued in one of two formats depending on the nationality status of the holder. For ordinary permanent residents holding a passport from their country of citizenship, it is issued as a stamp or sticker affixed to a page on its holder's passport. For members of the Chōsen-seki community and descendants of Taiwanese immigrants whose ancestors moved to Japan when Korea and Taiwan were Japanese colonies, who are classified as special permanent residents, a booklet-form Japan re-entry Permit is issued for international travel. While special permanent residents are treated by Japanese authorities as similar to Japanese citizens in most regards, including access to consular assistance, they are unable to participate in elections or exercise other rights reserved specifically for Japanese citizens. Nevertheless, they enjoy greater legal rights than ordinary permanent residents. For example, special permanent residents are not subject to immigration control under Article 5 of the Immigration Control Act 1951. During the coronavirus pandemic of 2020, special permanent residents were allowed the right of return, while other permanent residents were denied permission to enter Japan.[250][251]
Various Indigenous nations in the Americas, as well as the Aboriginal Provisional Government in Australia, issue passports to their citizens as an assertion of sovereignty symbolically rejecting the legitimacy of settler authorities. Notable examples include the Haudenosaunee passport issued by the Six Nations of the Haudenosaunee confederacy, the Aboriginal passport in Australia, and various Indigenous passports in Latin America such as the Kichwa passport in Ecuador.[252] Indigenous passports are typically not recognised as valid travel documents for border control purposes. In particular, the Iroquois Nationals lacrosse team has been involved in high profile disputes over their refusal to travel on Canadian or American passports to international lacrosse competitions, being prevented from attending the 2010 World Lacrosse Championship in the United Kingdom[253] but being permitted to attend the tournament in 2018 in Israel subject to guarantees from the Canadian and American governments that the players would be permitted to return home.[254][255]
While Indigenous passports are generally not recognised by border control authorities, the Certificate of Indigenous Status issued by the Canadian government to individuals on the Indian Register is accepted by American and Canadian border control authorities for travel by land or sea.[256] In 2018, the Canadian government introduced a Secure Certificate of Indigenous Status that serves as a machine readable travel document to enable Indigenous individuals to cross the border more efficiently.[257] In order to address the desire of members of Indigenous nations not to be labelled as Canadian citizens, the Secure Certificate of Indigenous Status does not state the individual's nationality[258]
While the majority of international travellers clear border controls using passports or national identity cards, a wide variety of travel documents are utilised by individuals in irregular situations, ranging from de jure or de facto stateless individuals to individuals affected by international border disputes, the aftermath of the fall of states such as Yugoslavia or the USSR, or other legal complexities.
A certificate of identity is a travel document issued by a country to non-citizens (also called aliens) residing within their borders who are stateless persons or otherwise unable to obtain a passport from their state of nationality (generally refugees). Some states also issue certificates of identity to their own citizens as a form of emergency passport or otherwise in lieu of a passport. The visa requirements of certificates of identity may be different from those of regular passports. There are three types of certificate of identity: 1954 Convention travel documents, 1951 Convention travel documents, and non-convention travel documents.
A 1954 Convention travel document is a certificate of identity issued to a (typically, but not always, stateless) person in circumstances of any difficulties in gaining a travel document from their country of origin.[259]
Similarly, a 1951 Convention travel document (or refugee travel document) is a certificate of identity issued to a refugee by the state in which they normally reside in allowing them to travel outside that state and to return there. Refugees are unlikely to be able to obtain passports from their state of nationality (from which they have sought asylum) and therefore need travel documents so that they might engage in international travel. The 145 states which are parties to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees are obliged to issue travel documents to refugees lawfully resident in their territory.[260] Refugee travel documents are passport-like booklets. Their cover bears the words "Travel Document" in English and French (and often in the language of the issuing state), as well as the date of the convention: 28 July 1951. The documents were originally grey, though some countries now issue them in other colours, with two diagonal lines in the upper left corner of the front cover.
Non-Convention (or non-National) travel documents are certificates of identity issued by a country to non-citizen (also called alien) residents who do not have access to passport facilities from their own countries, are not recognized as either Convention refugees, and are not officially stateless under the 1954 Convention relating to the status of stateless persons (or the country they live in has not signed that convention). These are issued in many jurisdictions across the globe in which significant numbers of residents are stateless. For instance, Singapore permanent residents who are stateless are issued booklet-form Certificates of Identity in lieu of a passport while Indonesia issues the Paspor Orang Asing to its stateless permanent residents. The issue Hong Kong Document of Identity for Visa Purposes and Macau Travel Permit, serve a similar function in China’s special administrative regions and are issued to stateless permanent residents and to Chinese citizens temporarily residing in the region who hold neither permanent residence of Hong Kong or Macau nor residence status in the mainland and are thereby ineligible for any category of Chinese passport.
The Indian government issues non-convention certificates of identity to members of the large Tibetan exile community and to other stateless residents of India. Certificates of identity are routinely issued upon request of the Dalai Lama’s Tibetan government in exile based in Dharamsala. This document is accepted by most countries border control policies in lieu of a passport, although it is not a machine readable document. Tibetans travelling to areas administered by the Republic of China or People’s Republic of China may be required to use a ROC passport without right of abode or a Chinese Travel Document instead. When issued to a Tibetan residing in India, a certificate of identity is invariably endorsed as being valid for return to India and therefore exempts the holder from requiring a visa to clear Indian border controls upon re-entry.
Similarly, non-citizens in Latvia and in Estonia are individuals, primarily of Russian or Ukrainian ethnicity, who are not citizens of Latvia or Estonia but whose families have resided in the area since the Soviet era, and thus have the right to a special non-citizen passport issued by the government as well as some other specific rights. Approximately two thirds of them are ethnic Russians, followed by ethnic Belarussians, ethnic Ukrainians, ethnic Poles and ethnic Lithuanians.[261][262] This form of legal discrimination has been labelled as xenophobic by the UN Special Rapporteur.[263]
The Chinese Government requires certain people to enter the mainland using a Chinese Travel Document. Some cases include:
Unlike most countries, the United Kingdom and the Republic of China issue various categories of passports to individuals without the right of abode in their territory. In the United Kingdom’s case, these passports are typically issued to individuals connected with a former British colony while, in the ROC’s case, these passports are the result of the legal distinction between ROC nationals with and without residence in the area it administers. [k] In both cases, holders of such passports are able to obtain residence on an equal footing with foreigners by applying for indefinite leave to remain (UK) or a resident certificate (ROC).
A Republic of China citizen who does not have household registration in the area administered by the ROC [k] is classified as a National Without Household Registration (NWOHR) and is subject to immigration controls when clearing ROC border controls, deso not have automatic residence rights, and cannot vote in Taiwanese elections. However, they are exempt from conscription. Most individuals with this status are children born overseas to ROC citizens who do hold household registration. Additionally, because the ROC observes the principle of jus sanguinis, members of the overseas Chinese community are also regarded as citizens.[265] During the Cold War, both the ROC and PRC governments actively sought the support of overseas Chinese communities in their attempts to secure the position as the legitimate sole government of China. The ROC also encouraged overseas Chinese businessmen to settle in Taiwan to facilitate economic development and regulations concerning evidence of ROC nationality by descent were particularly lax during the period, allowing many overseas Chinese the right to settle in Taiwan.[266] About 60,000 NWOHRs currently hold Taiwanese passports with this status.[267]
The United Kingdom issues several distinct categories of passports that do not grant bearers right of abode. British National (Overseas) passports are issued to individuals connected to Hong Kong prior to its return to China, British Overseas Citizen passports are primarily issued to individuals who did not acquire the citizenship of the colony they were connected to when it obtained independence (or their stateless descendants), British Protected Person passports are issued to otherwise stateless people connected to a former British protectorate, and British subject passports are issued to otherwise stateless individuals connected to British India or to certain categories of Irish citizens (though, in the latter case, they do convey right of abode). British Overseas Citizen passports are also issued to certain categories of Malaysian nationals of Chinese origin as a result of the legislation granting Malaysia its independence.
Under Serbian law, people born in Kosovo or otherwise legally settled in Kosovo are by law considered Serbian nationals and as such they are entitled to a Serbian passport.[268] However, these passports are not issued by the Serbian Ministry of the Interior. Instead they are issued by the Serbian Coordination Directorate.[269] These particular passports do not allow the holder to enter the Schengen Area without a visa.[270]
Most countries impose visa requirements on foreign nationals, and depending on the country's border control strategy these can be liberal or restrictive. Visas often take the form of an inked stamp, although some countries use adhesive stickers that incorporate security features to discourage forgery. Many countries in Asia have liberalised their visa controls in recent years to encourage transnational business and tourism. For example, India, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka have introduced electronic visas to make border control less of a bureaucratic hurdle for business travellers and tourists. Malaysia has introduced similar eVisa facilities, and has also introduced the eNTRI programme to expedite clearance for Indian citizens and Chinese citizens from the mainland. Thailand regularly issues visas on arrival to many non-exempt visitors at major ports of entry in order to encourage tourism. Indonesia, in recent years, has progressively liberalised its visa regime, no longer requiring visas or on-arrival visas from most nationals, while Singapore has signed visa waiver agreements with many countries in recent years and has introduced electronic visa facilities for Indians, Eastern Europeans, and mainland Chinese. This trend towards visa liberalisation in Asia is part of the broader phenomenon of globalisation and has been linked to heightened economic growth.[271]
Certain countries, predominantly but not exclusively in western Europe and the Americas, issue working holiday visas for younger visitors to supplement their travel funds by working minor jobs. These are especially common in members of the European Union, and elsewhere in Europe.
Saudi Arabia issues a special category visa for people on religious pilgrimage. Similar policies are in force in other countries with significant religious sites.
Certain jurisdictions impose special visa requirements on journalists in order to curtail the freedom of foreign reporters and news organisations to report on controversial topics. Countries that impose such visas include Cuba, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, America and Zimbabwe.
As a consequence of awkward border situations created by the fall of the Soviet Union, certain former members of the USSR and their neighbours maintain special visa exemption policies for travellers transiting across international boundaries between two points in a single country. For instance, Russia permits vehicles to transit across the Saatse Boot between the Estonian villages of Lutepää and Sesniki without any visa or border checkpoint provided that they do not stop. Similar provisions are made for the issuance of Facilitated Rail Transit Documents by Schengen Area members for travel between Kaliningrad Oblast and the Russian mainland, enabling Russian citizens to travel to and from the exclave without a passport or visa.
Many countries let individuals clear border controls using foreign visas.[q] Notably, the Philippines permits nationals of India and China can use any of several foreign visas to clear border controls.[r] In order to encourage tourism by transit passengers, South Korea permits passengers in transit who would otherwise require a South Korean visa to enter for up to thirty days utilising an Australian, Canadian, American, or Schengen visa. Uniquely, the British territory of Bermuda has ceased to issue its own visas and instead requires that travellers either clear immigration visa-free in one of the three countries (Canada, America, and United Kingdom) to/from which it has direct flights, or hold a visa for one of them.
Beginning in the 2000s, many countries introduced electronic travel authorisations as an alternative to traditional visas. An electronic travel authorisation is a kind of pre-arrival registration, which may or may not officially classified as a visa depending on the issuing jurisdiction, required for foreign travellers who are exempted from obtaining a full visa. In contrast to the procedures that typically apply in regard to proper visas, per which the traveller normally has no recourse if rejected, if an ETA is rejected the traveller can choose to apply for a visa instead. The following jurisdictions require certain categories of international travellers to hold an Electronic Travel Authorisation in order to clear border controls upon arrival:
.jpg){kind=spacer}
The degree of strictness of border controls varies across countries and borders. In some countries, controls may be targeted at the traveller's religion, ethnicity, nationality, or other countries that have been visited. Others may need to be certain the traveller has paid the appropriate fees for their visas and has future travel planned out of the country. Yet others may concentrate on the contents of the traveller's baggage, and imported goods to ensure nothing is being carried that might bring a biosecurity risk into the country.
.jpg)
Several countries mandate that all travellers, or all foreign travellers, be fingerprinted on arrival and will refuse admission to or even arrest travellers who refuse to comply. In some countries, such as America, this may apply even to transit passengers who merely wish to quickly change planes rather than go landside.[289]
Fingerprinting countries include Afghanistan,[290][291] Argentina,[292] Brunei, Cambodia,[293] China,[294] Ethiopia,[295] Ghana, Guinea,[296] India, Japan,[297][298] Kenya (both fingerprints and a photo are taken),[299] Malaysia upon entry and departure,[300] Paraguay, Saudi Arabia,[301] Singapore, South Korea,[302] Taiwan, Thailand,[303] Uganda[304] and the United States.
Many countries also require a photo be taken of people entering the country. America, which does not fully implement exit control formalities at its land frontiers (although long mandated by domestic legislation),[305][306][307] intends to implement facial recognition for passengers departing from international airports to identify people who overstay their visa.[308]
Together with fingerprint and face recognition, iris scanning is one of three biometric identification technologies internationally standardised since 2006 by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) for use in e-passports[309] and the United Arab Emirates conducts iris scanning on visitors who need to apply for a visa.[310][311] The United States Department of Homeland Security has announced plans to greatly increase the biometric data it collects at US borders.[312] In 2018, Singapore began trials of iris scanning at three land and maritime immigration checkpoints.[313][314]
An immigration stamp is an inked impression in a passport or other travel document typically made by rubber stamp upon entering or exiting a territory. Depending on the jurisdiction, a stamp can serve different purposes. For example, in the United Kingdom, an immigration stamp in a passport includes the formal leave to enter granted to a person subject to entry control. In other countries, a stamp activates or acknowledges the continuing leave conferred in the passport bearer's entry clearance. Under the Schengen system, a foreign passport is stamped with a date stamp which does not indicate any duration of stay. This means that the person is deemed to have permission to remain either for three months or for the period shown on his visa if specified otherwise. Member states of the European Union are not permitted to place a stamp in the passport of a person who is not subject to immigration control. Stamping is prohibited because it is an imposition of a control to which the person is not subject.
Passport stamps may occasionally take the form of sticker stamps, such as entry stamps from Japan. Depending on nationality, a visitor may not receive a stamp at all (unless specifically requested), such as an EU or EFTA citizen travelling to an EU or EFTA country, Albania,[315] or North Macedonia.[316] Most countries issue exit stamps in addition to entry stamps. A few countries issue only entry stamps, including Canada, El Salvador, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, United Kingdom and the America. Australia, Hong Kong, Israel, Macau and South Korea do not stamp passports upon entry nor exit. These countries or regions issue landing slips instead, with the exception of Australia who do not issue any form of physical evidence of entry. Visas may also take the form of passport stamps.
Immigration authorities usually have different styles of stamps for entries and exits, to make it easier to identify the movements of people. Ink colour might be used to designate mode of transportation (air, land or sea), such as in Hong Kong prior to 1997; while border styles did the same thing in Macau. Other variations include changing the size of the stamp to indicate length of stay, as in Singapore.
In many cases passengers on cruise ships do not receive passport stamps because the entire vessel has been cleared into port. It is often possible to get a souvenir stamp, although this requires finding the immigration office by the dock. In many cases officials are used to such requests and will cooperate.[317][318] Also, as noted below, some of the smallest European countries will give a stamp on request, either at their border or tourist office charging, at most, a nominal fee.
In some countries, there is no formal control by immigration officials of travel documents upon exit. Consequently, exit stamps are not placed in passports. Exit may be recorded by immigration authorities via information provided to them by carriers when the passenger departs from the country.
Whilst most countries implement border controls both at entry and at exit, some jurisdictions do not. For instance, the US and Canada do not implement exit controls at land borders and collect exit data on foreign nationals through airlines and through information sharing with neighbouring countries’ entry border controls. These countries consequently don't issue exit stamps even to travellers who require stamps on entry. Similarly, Australia, Singapore and South Korea have eliminated exit stamps even though they continue to implement brief border control checks upon exit for most foreign nationals.
United States of America[319]
Canada
Mexico (by air)
Bahamas
Ireland
United Kingdom (Border Force officers do not carry out systematic checks of travel documents on passengers travelling to a destination outside the Common Travel Area by air, rail or sea (though from time to time spot checks are carried out – in this case passports are not stamped); instead, airline/rail/ferry companies obtain passengers' travel document information at check-in or on departure and transmit the information electronically to the UK Border Force)[320]
Albania (Entry & Exit stamp may issued upon request)
Australia (Exit stamp issued upon explicit request)[321]
China (Exit stamp issued upon request when using e-Gate)
Costa Rica (only at Costa Rican airports; different entry and exit stamps are made at the border crossing with Panama)
El Salvador
Fiji
Hong Kong (no entry or exit stamps are issued, instead landing slips are issued upon arrival only)[322]
Iran[323]
Israel (no entry or exit stamps are issued at Ben Gurion Airport, instead landing slips are issued upon arrival and departure)
Japan (Exit stamp issued upon request & when not using e-Gate since July 2019)[324]
Macau (no entry or exit stamps are issued, instead landing slips are issued upon arrival only)
New Zealand
South Korea (since 1 November 2016)
Panama (only at Panamanian airports; different entry and exit stamps are made at the border crossing with Costa Rica)
Republic of China (exit stamp issued upon request & when not using e-Gate)
Singapore (no exit stamps since 22 April 2019)[325]
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Schengen Area countries (when the Entry Exit System becomes operational in 2022, it is anticipated that the passports of third-country nationals will not be stamped when they enter and leave the Schengen Area)[citation needed]Some countries in Europe maintain controversial exit visa systems in addition to regular border controls. For instance, Uzbekistan requires its own citizens to obtain exit visas prior to leaving for countries other than fellow CIS nations in eastern Europe. Several countries in the Arabian peninsula require exit visas for foreign workers under the Kafala System meaning "sponsorship system"). Russia occasionally requires foreigners who overstay to obtain exit visas since one cannot exit Russia without a valid visa. Czechia has a similar policy.[326] Similarly, a foreign citizen granted a temporary residence permit in Russia needs an exit visa to take a trip abroad (valid for both exit and return). Not all foreign citizens are subject to that requirement. Citizens of Germany, for example, do not require this exit visa.
Certain Asian countries have policies that similarly require certain categories of citizens to seek official authorisation prior to travelling or emigrating. This is usually either as a way to enforce national service obligations or to protect migrant workers from travelling to places where they may be abused by employers. Singapore, for instance, operates an Exit Permit scheme in order to enforce the national service obligations of its male citizens and permanent residents.[327] These restrictions vary according to age and status.[328] South Korea and Taiwan[329] have similar policies. India, on the other hand, requires citizens who have not met certain educational requirements (and thus may be targeted by human traffickers or be coerced into modern slavery) to apply for approval prior to leaving the country and endorses their passports with ”Emigration Check Required”. Nepal similarly requires citizens emigrating to America on an H-1B visa to present an exit permit issued by the Ministry of Labour. This document is called a work permit and needs to be presented to immigration to leave the country.[330] In a bid to increase protection for the large amount of Indian, Bangladeshi, Chinese, and Nepali citizens smuggled through Indian airports to the Middle East as underpaid labourers, many Indian airline companies require travellers to obtain an ‘OK to Board’ confirmation sent directly from visa authorities in certain GCC countries directly to the airline and will bar anyone who has not obtained this endorsement from clearing exit immigration.
.png)
Many nations implement border controls restricting the entry of people of certain nationalities or who have visited certain countries. For instance Georgia refuses entry to holders of passports issued by the Republic of China.[331] Similarly, since April 2017 nationals of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and Iran have been banned from entering the parts of eastern Libya under the control of the Tobruk government.[331][332][333] America does not currently issue new visas to nationals of Iran, North Korea, Libya, Somalia, Syria, or Yemen pursuant to restrictions imposed by the Trump administration.[334] In the case of the American policy, restrictions are conditional and can be lifted if the countries affected meet the required security standards specified by the Trump administration, and dual citizens of these countries can still enter if they present a passport from a non-designated country. The majority of Arab countries, as well as Iran and Malaysia, ban Israeli citizens,[331] however exceptional entry to Malaysia is possible with approval from the Ministry of Home Affairs.[335] Certain countries may also restrict entry to those with Israeli stamps or visas in their passports.
In some cases, border control policies target stateless individuals, or individuals holding nationality statuses without right of abode, including individuals with Republic of China (ROC) passports without a national ID, and British Subjects or British Overseas Citizens without indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. ROC nationals without ID numbers do not, for instance, have access to the Visa Waiver Program, or to visa free access to the Schengen Area or Japan. Other countries, such as India which allows all Chinese nationals to apply for eVisas, don't make such a distinction. Singapore imposes strict controls on stateless individuals and refugees, and reduces length of stay for British nationals without right of abode in the United Kingdom, but does not distinguish between ROC passports with and without national ID numbers.
As a result of tension over the Artsakh dispute, Azerbaijan currently forbids entry to Armenian citizens as well as to individuals with proof of travel to Artsakh.
A significant number of countries maintain prescreening facilities for passengers departing from other jurisdictions to clear border controls prior to arrival and thereby skip checkpoints upon arrival. Aside from simplifying arrival formalities, this enables border control authorities to deny entry to potentially inadmissible travellers prior to their embarking and to reduce congestion at border checkpoints located at ports of arrival.
Hong Kong and Mainland China
A component of the Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link, West Kowloon Station contains a “Mainland Port Area”, essentially enabling passengers and goods to clear mainland Chinese immigration on Hong Kong soil.
The Shenzhen Bay Control Point is a Hong Kong immigration facility co-located with mainland Chinese facilities at Shenzhen Bay Port. It is located in the Chinese mainland on land leased from the city of Shenzhen in Guangdong province. It essentially enables travellers to clear both Chinese and Hong Kong border controls in one place, thus eliminating any need for border control on the Hong Kong side of the Shenzhen Bay Bridge.
Singapore and Malaysia
For cross-border rail passengers, Singaporean exit and Malaysian entry preclearance border controls are co-located at the Woodlands Train Checkpoint in Singapore, whilst Malaysian exit controls are located separately at Johor Bahru Sentral railway station in Malaysia.
The upcoming Rapid Transit System (RTS) connecting Singapore and Johor Bahru will feature border control preclearance both on the Singaporean side and on the Malaysian side. This will enable passengers arriving in Singapore from Malaysia or vice versa to proceed straight to their connecting transport, since the RTS will link to both the Singapore MRT system (Thomson-East Coast MRT Line) and Johor Bahru Sentral. Unlike the preclearance systems adopted in America and Hong Kong, but similar to the United Kingdom’s juxtaposed controls, this system will mitigate arrival border controls on both sides of the border.[336][337]
Malaysia and Thailand
The Padang Besar railway station in Padang Besar, Malaysia has co-located border control facilities for both Malaysia and Thailand, although the station is wholly located inside Malaysian territory (albeit just 200 metres south of the Malaysia-Thailand border). The facilities for each country operate from separate counters inside the railway station building at the platform level.[338] Passengers entering Thailand clear Malaysian and Thai border formalities here in Malaysian territory before boarding their State Railway of Thailand trains which then cross the actual borderline several minutes after departing the station. Passengers from Thailand entering Malaysia are also processed here, using the same counters as there are no separate counters for processing entries and exits for either country.
United Kingdom and the Schengen Area
Border control for travel between the United Kingdom and the Schengen Area features significant prescreening under the juxtaposed controls programme for travel both by ferry and rail. This includes customs and immigration prescreening on both sides of the Eurotunnel, and immigration-only prescreening for ferry passengers and on the Eurostar between the United Kingdom and stations located in Belgium and France. Eurostar and Eurotunnel passengers departing from the Schengen area go through both French or Belgian exit border control and British entry border controls before departures, while passengers departing from the United Kingdom, including those departing for Belgium, undergo French border controls on British soil. For travel by ferry, French entry border control for ferries between Dover and Calais or Dunkerque take place at the Port of Dover, whilst French exit and British entry border control takes place at Calais and Dunkerque. For travel by rail, the following juxtaposed border controls are currently in operation:
America
The American government operates border preclearance facilities at a number of ports and airports in foreign territory. They are staffed and operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers. Travellers pass through American Immigration and Customs, Public Health, and Agriculture inspections before boarding their aircraft, ship, or train. This process is intended to streamline border procedures, reduce congestion at ports of entry, and facilitate travel between the preclearance location and American airports unequipped to handle international travellers.
These facilities are present at the majority of major Canadian airports, as well as selected airports in Bermuda, Aruba, the Bahamas, Abu Dhabi[341] and Ireland.[342] Facilities located in Canada accept NEXUS cards and United States Passport cards (land/sea entry only) in lieu of passports. A preclearance facility is currently being planned at Dubai International Airport[343]
Citizens of the Bahamas who enter America through either of the two preclearance facilities in that country enjoy an exemption from the general requirement to hold a visa as long as they can sufficiently prove that they do not have a significant criminal record in either the Bahamas or America. All Bahamians applying for admission at a port-of-entry other than the pre-clearance facilities located in Nassau or Freeport International airports are required to be in possession of a valid visa.[344]
Preclearance facilities are also operated at Pacific Central Station, the Port of Vancouver, and the Port of Victoria in British Columbia, and there are plans to open one at Montreal Central Station in Quebec.
In some cases countries can introduce controls that functions as border controls but aren't border controls legally and don't need to be performed by government agencies. Normally they are performed and organised by private companies, based on a law that they have to check that passengers don't travel into a specific country if they aren't allowed to. Such controls can take effect in one country based on the law of another country without any formalised border control prescreening agreement in force. Even if they aren't border controls they function as such. The most prominent example is airlines which check passports and visa before passengers are allowed to board the aircraft. Also for some passenger boats such check are performed before boarding.
Certain countries and trade blocs establish programmes for high-frequency and/or low risk travellers to expedite border controls, subjecting them to lighter or automated checks, or priority border control facilities. In some countries, citizens or residents have access to automated facilities not available to foreigners.
ePassport gates in the British Isles are operated by the UK Border Force and the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, and are located at immigration checkpoints in the arrival halls of some airports across the British Isles, offering an alternative to using desks staffed by immigration officers. The gates use facial recognition system to verify the user's identity by comparing the user's facial features to those recorded in the photograph stored in the chip in their biometric passport.
British citizens, European Economic Area citizens and citizens of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and America as well as Chinese citizens of Hong Kong who are enrolled in the Registered Traveller Service,[345] can use ePassport gates at the following airports in the United Kingdom, provided that they are aged either 18 and over or 12 and over travelling with an adult and holding valid biometric passports:
In Ireland, eGates are available at Dublin Airport for arrivals at Terminal 1 (Piers 1 and 2) and Terminal 2. They are currently available to citizens of Switzerland and the European Economic Area with electronic passports aged 18 or over. There are proposals to extend the service to non-European citizens. Irish Passport Cards can not be used.
Hong Kong & Macau
The e-Channel is an automated border control facility available at airports in Hong Kong and Macau, and at land borders between the mainland and the Special Administrative Regions. It is open to residents in the appropriate regions, and to selected foreign nationals:[346] Republic of Korea passport Singapore passport
German passport Australian passport
Thai passport
In Hong Kong, the eChannel is also available to non-residents on departure, without registration, and to registered non-residents who qualify as "frequent travellers", including Chinese citizens from the Mainland, for both arrival and departure.
Finally, Hong Kong's and Macao's eChannel systems recognise each other's Permanent Resident ID card, after registration in an automated kiosk at the ferry terminal.
Japan Along with the introduction of J-BIS, an "Automated gate" (自動化ゲート) was set up at Terminal 1 and 2 at Narita Airport, Haneda Airport, Chubu Centrair Airport and Kansai Airport.[347] With this system, when a person enters or leaves the country, rather than having to be processed by an examiner there, a person can use a machine at the gate, thereby making both entry and departure simpler and easier, as well as more convenient.[348] Japanese people with valid passports, foreigners with both valid passports (this includes refugees with valid travel certificates and re-entry permits) and re-entry permits can use this system.[348]
Mainland China Residents in the PRC, both Chinese citizens and foreign residents (not tourists) can use the Chinese E-Channel after registration, which is done at the border, before leaving the Mainland. Chinese citizens with Hong Kong or Macao Permanent Residency, aka HKID***, can use their Home Return Permit instead of their passport to enter and leave the Mainland.
Australia and New Zealand SmartGates located at major Australian airports allow Australian ePassport holders and ePassport holders of a number of other countries to clear immigration controls more rapidly, and to enhance travel security by performing passport control checks electronically.[349] SmartGate uses facial recognition system to verify the traveller's identity against the data stored in the chip in their biometric passport, as well as checking against immigration databases. Travellers require a biometric passport to use SmartGate as it uses information from the passport (such as photograph, name and date of birth) and in the respective countries' databases (i.e. banned travellers database) to decide whether to grant entry or departure from Australia or to generate a referral to a customs agent.[350] These checks would otherwise require manual processing by a human which is time-consuming, costly and potentially error-prone.[351]
In New Zealand, a SmartGate system exists at Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown airports,[352] enabling holders of biometric passports issued by New Zealand, Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and America to clear border controls using automated facilities. The system can currently only be used by travellers 12 years of age or older, however a trial is under way that may potentially lower the age of eligibility to use eGate for people with an eligible ePassport from 12 years of age to 10 years of age. New Zealand eGates utilise biometric technology, comparing the picture of your face in your ePassport with the picture it takes of you at the gate in order to confirm your identity. To make sure eGate can do this, travellers must make sure they look as similar to their ePassport photos as possible and remove glasses, scarves and hats that they were not wearing when their passport picture was taken. eGate can handle minor changes in your face, for example if the travellers' weight or hair has changed. Customs, Biosecurity and Immigration officials utilise information provided at eGates, including photos, to clear travellers and their items across New Zealand's border. Biometric information is kept for three months before destruction but other information, including about movements across New Zealand's border is kept indefinitely and handled in accordance with the Privacy Act 1993, or as the law authorises. This might include information being used by or shared with other law enforcement or border control authorities. Since 1 July 2019, visitors from the 60 Visa Waiver countries require a New Zealand electronic Travel Authority (NZeTA). This is an online application and a further toolkit and requirements for airlines and travel agents can be downloaded from the New Zealand Immigration website.[353]
Thailand The automated passport control (APC) system, which uses a facial recognition system, has been available for Thai nationals since 2012 and more than 20 million have used it. Suvarnabhumi Airport opened 8 automated immigration lanes for foreigners, but only Singaporeans were allowed to use the system initially. Since then, Singaporeans and holders of the Hong Kong SAR passport have been allowed to use the system.[346][354] Once processed, the foreign travellers can leave the automatic channel and present their passport to a Thai immigration officer to be stamped.[346]
Singapore The enhanced-Immigration Automated Clearance System (eIACS) is available at all checkpoints for Singapore citizens, permanent residents, foreign residents with long-term passes and other registered travellers. Foreign visitors whose fingerprints are registered on arrival may use the eIACS lanes for exit clearance. In addition, the Biometric Identification of Motorbikers (BIKES) System is available for eligible motorcyclists at the land border crossings with Malaysia. Meanwhile, all visitors who have been fingerprinted on entry at a manned counter can use the eIACS to leave Singapore by air. Additionally, nationals of certain countries may register to use the eIACS system on entry; these countries are:
Australian passport
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport
Japan passport
Malaysia passport
New Zealand passport
People's Republic of China passport
Republic of Korea passport
Thailand passport
United Kingdom passport
United States passport
Plus holders of the APEC_Business_Travel_Card.
Conditions apply to some of these countries.
South Korea
South Korea maintains a programme known as the Smart Entry Service, open for registration by South Koreans aged 7 or above and by registered foreigners aged 17 or above.[355] Foreign passport holders eligible to register include: Singapore passport Republic of China passport United States passport[356] Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport Macao Special Administrative Region passport
Furthermore, visitors aged 17 or older may use the Smart Entry Service on exit at international airports, as long as they have provided their biometrics on arrival.
Taiwan A similar automated entry system, eGate, exists in Taiwan providing expedited border control for Taiwanese nationals [k] as well as certain classes of residents and frequent visitors. Users simply scan their travel documents at the gate and are passed through for facial recognition.[357]
As of 2019, there have been instances of foreign non-registered travellers allowed to use the eGate system to depart, notably at Taipei Taoyuan Airport Terminal 1, but not Terminal 2, using a passport scan and fingerprints.
North America has a range of expedited border control programmes.
CARIPASS is a voluntary travel card programme that will provide secure and simple border crossings for Caribbean Community (CARICOM) citizens and some legal residents of CARICOM nations.[358] The CARIPASS initiative is coordinated by the Implementation Agency for Crime and Security (CARICOM IMPACS), and seeks to provide standardised border control facilities within participating Caribbean communities.[359]
CARIPASS is accepted as a valid travel document within and between participating member states and will allow cardholders to access automated gate facilities at immigration checkpoints that will use biometric technology to verify the user.[360]
The following CARICOM jurisdictions are participating in the programme:[361]
NEXUS is a joint Canadian-American expedited border control programme for low risk travellers holding Canadian or U.S. citizenship or permanent residence. Membership requires approval by Canadian and American authorities and entitles members to dedicated RFID-enabled lanes when crossing the land border. A NEXUS card can also be utilised as a travel document between the two countries and entitles passengers to priority border control facilities in Canada and Global Entry facilities in America.
Free and Secure Trade or FAST is a similar programme for commercial drivers and approved importers, reducing the amount of customs checks conducted at the border and expediting the border control process.
Canadian citizens and Permanent Residents who are approved by Canadian authorities but not by the Americans can join CANPASS, which provides similar border control benefits but solely in Canada.
Global Entry is an programme for frequent travellers that enables them to utilise automated border control facilities and priority security screening. In addition to American citizens and Permanent Residents, the programme is open to Indian,[362] Singaporean,[363] and South Korean citizens amongst others.
SENTRI is a similar programme for American and Mexican citizens that additionally allows members to register their cars for expedited land border controls. When entering America by land from Canada, it can be used as a NEXUS card, but not the other way around.
Global Entry members (as well as NEXUS and SENTRI card holders with a Known Traveller Number) are eligible to use automated Global Entry facilities at certain airports to clear border control more efficiently. Enrolled users must present their machine-readable passport or permanent residency card, and submit their fingerprints to establish identity. Users then complete an electronic customs declaration, and are issued a receipt instructing them to either proceed to baggage claim, or to a normal inspection booth for an interview.[364]
Participants may utilise automated kiosks to clear American border controls at participating airports.[w]
TSA PreCheck is a trusted traveller programme initiated in December 2013 and administered by the American Transportation Security Administration that allows selected members of select frequent flyer programs, members of Global Entry, NEXUS, and SENTRI, members of the US military, and cadets and midshipmen of the United States service academies[366] After completing a background check, being fingerprinted,[367] and paying an $85 fee, travellers will get a Known Traveler Number. TSA does not issue an ID card like Global Entry, NEXUS, and SENTRI do.[368] Travelers are notified if they have PreCheck by having a indicator printed on their boarding pass that may say "TSAPRECHK", "TSA PRE", or "TSA Pre✓®" depending on the airline and type of boarding pass.[368] As of December 2019, a total of 73 airlines were participating in the program.[369]
Viajero Confiable is a Mexican trusted traveller programme which allows members to pass securely through customs and immigration controls in reduced time,[370] using automated kiosks at participating airports. Viajero Confiable was introduced in three airports in 2014 and has since expanded to additional sites. Like the NEXUS, Global Entry, and TSA PreCheck programs, Viajero Confiable members traveling via participating airports may use designated lanes which allow them to speedily and securely clear customs, because the Mexican government has already performed a background check on them, and they are considered a trusted traveller. At the participating airports, members may use automated kiosks to scan their passport and fingerprints, and complete an electronic immigration form.[citation needed] The programme is targeted at Mexican citizens, as well as American or Canadian citizens who are members of the Global Entry or NEXUS programme and are lawful permanent residents of Mexico,[371] membership is valid for five years.[citation needed]
The APEC Business Travel Card, or ABTC, is an expedited border control programme for business travellers from APEC economies (excluding Canada and America). It provides visa exemptions and access to expedited border control facilities. ABTC holders are eligible for expedited border control at Canadian airports but not for any visa exemptions.
ABTCs are generally issued only to citizens of APEC member countries, however Hong Kong issues them to Permanent Residents who are not Chinese citizens, a category primarily consisting of British, Indian, and Pakistani citizens.
The use of ABTCs in China is restricted as a result of the One Country, Two Systems and One China policies. Taiwanese nationals, and Chinese citizens from Hong Kong, and Macau are required to use special internal travel documents to enter the mainland. Similar restrictions exist on the use of ABTC for Chinese citizens of other regions entering Taiwan. (see: Internal border controls).
Border control is generally the responsibility of specialised government organisations which oversee various aspects their jurisdiction's border control policies, including customs, immigration policy, border security, biosecurity measures. Official designations, division of responsibilities, and command structures of these organisations vary considerably and some countries split border control functions across multiple agencies.
Most aspects of American border control are handled by various divisions of the Department of Homelend Security (DHS).
China
Border control in China is the responsibility of a variety of entities in each of the country's four distinct immigration areas. In the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, agencies tracing their lineage to British and Portuguese colonial authorities, respectively, perform border control functions based on the policies and practices in force before those territories' return to the People's Republic of China. Areas administered by the Republic of China are subject to border controls distinct from those in the People's Republic of China.
People's Republic of China:
Hong Kong: The Immigration Department of Hong Kong is responsible for border controls of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Regions, including internal controls with the rest of China. After the People's Republic of China resumed sovereignty of the territory in July 1997, Hong Kong's immigration system remained largely unchanged from its British predecessor model. In addition, visa-free entry acceptance regulations into Hong Kong for passport holders of some 170 countries remain unchanged before and after 1997. Macau: The Immigration Department of Macau, under the Public Security Police Force, is the government agency responsible for immigration matters, whilst the Public Security Police Force itself is responsible for enforcing immigration laws in Macau.[385] Mainland China: Border security in Mainland China are the responsibility of National Immigration Administration of the People's Republic of China, formerly the Exit & Entry Administration[386]), a unit of the Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China. Customs related border controls are largely within the purview of the General Administration of Customs of the People's Republic of China.
Republic of China: In areas controlled by the Republic of China[k] the National Immigration Agency, a subsidiary organisation of the Ministry of the Interior is responsible for border control. The agency is headed by the Director General. The current Director-General is Chiu Feng-kuang.[387] The agency was established in early 2007 and its job includes the care and guidance of new immigrants, exit and entry control, the deportation of undocumented migrants, and the prevention of human trafficking.[388] The agency also deals with persons from Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau who do not hold household registration in the areas controlled by the ROC.Border control in India is performed by a variety of organisations, each focusing on a distinct section of its external borders.
The Directorate General of Immigration is the primary agency tasked with border control in Indonesia.
The Immigration Department of Malaysia is a department of the Federal Government of Malaysia which provides services to Malaysian Citizens, Permanent Residents and Foreign Visitors.[400]
The functions of the department are as follows:
1. Issuing of passports and travel documents to Malaysian Citizens and Permanent Residents.
2. Issuing of visas, passes and permits to Foreign Nationals entering Malaysia.
3. Administering and managing the movement of people at authorised entry and exit points.
4. Enforcing the Immigration Act 1959/63, Immigration Regulations 1963 and Passport Act 1966.
.jpg)
Border Security Command and Coastal Security Bureau are collectively responsible for restricting unauthorised cross-border (land and sea) entries and exits, in the early 1990s the bureaux responsible for border security and coastal security were transferred from the State Security Department to the Ministry of People's Armed Forces. Sometime thereafter, the Border Security Bureau was enlarged to corps level and renamed the Border Security Command. Previously headquartered in Chagang Province, the Border Security Command was relocated to Pyongyang in 2002.[401]
Physical controls on the internationally recognised portions of Pakistan's international borders are managed by dedicated paramilitary units (the Pakistan Rangers on the border with India, Frontier Corps with Afghanistan and Iran) and the Gilgit−Baltistan Scouts with China, Pakistan-administered side of the Line of Control is guarded and patrolled by Pakistan Army.
Border control in the Schengen Area is primarily performed by the national authorities of individual member states. Consequently, there are many distinct organisations involved with border control along the area's external frontiers and at sea and air ports of entry within its members states.
European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex): Frontex[406][407] is the Schengen Area's multilateral border control organisation. It is headquartered in Warsaw and operates in coordination with the border and coast guards of individual Schengen Area member states. According to the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and the British Refugee Council, in written evidence submitted to the UK House of Lords inquiry, Frontex fails to demonstrate adequate consideration of international and European asylum and human rights law including the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and EU law in respect of access to asylum and the prohibition of refoulement.[408] In September 2009, a Turkish military radar issued a warning to a Latvian helicopter conducting an anti-migrant and anti-refugee patrol in the eastern Aegean Sea to leave the area as it is in Turkish airspace. The Turkish General Staff reported that the Latvian Frontex aircraft had violated Turkish airspace west of Didim.[409] According to a Hellenic Air Force announcement, the incident occurred as the Frontex helicopter —identified as an Italian-made Agusta A109— was patrolling a common route used by people smugglers near the small isle of Farmakonisi.[410] Another incident took place in October 2009 in the airspace above the eastern Aegean sea, off the island of Lesbos.[411] On 20 November 2009, the Turkish General Staff issued a press note alleging that an Estonian Border Guard aircraft Let L-410 UVP taking off from Kos on a Frontex mission had violated Turkish airspace west of Söke.[409] As part of the Border and Coast Guard a Return Office was established with the capacity to repatriate immigrants residing illegally in the union by deploying Return Intervention Teams composed of escorts, monitors, and specialists dealing with related technical aspects. For this repatriation, a uniform European travel document would ensure wider acceptance by third countries. In emergency situations such Intervention Teams will be sent to problem areas to bolster security, either at the request of a member state or at the agency's own initiative. It is this latter proposed capability, to be able to deploy specialists to member states borders without the approval[z] of the national government in question that is proving the most controversial aspect of this European Commission plan.[412]
Direction centrale de la police aux frontières: The Direction centrale de la police aux frontières (DCPF) is a directorate of the French National Police that is responsible for border control at certain border crossing points and border surveillance in some areas in France.[413] They work alongside their British counterparts at Calais, and along the Channel Tunnel Rail Link with the British Transport Police. The DCPF is consequently largely responsible for Schengen Area border controls with the United Kingdom. Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects: Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects (DGDDI), commonly known as les douanes, is a French law enforcement agency responsible for levying indirect taxes, preventing smuggling, surveilling borders and investigating counterfeit money. The agency acts as a coast guard, border guard, sea rescue organisation and a customs service.[414] In addition, since 1995, the agency has replaced the Border Police in carrying out immigration control at smaller border checkpoints, in particular at maritime borders and regional airports.[415]
Finnish Border Guard: The Finnish Border Guard, including the coast guard, is the agency responsible for border control related to persons, including passport control and border patrol. The Border Guard is a paramilitary organisation, subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior in administrative issues and to the President of the Republic in issues pertaining to the president's authority as Commander-in-Chief (e.g. officer promotions). The Finland-Russia border is a controlled external border of the Schengen Area, routinely patrolled and protected by a border zone enforced by the Border Guard. Finland's borders with Norway and Sweden are internal Schengen borders with no routine border controls, but the Border Guard maintains personnel in the area owing to its search and rescue (SAR) duties. There are two coast guard districts for patrolling maritime borders. In peacetime, the Border Guard trains special forces and light infantry and can be incorporated fully or in part into the Finnish Defence Forces when required by defence readiness. The Border Guard has police and investigative powers in immigration matters and can independently investigate immigration violations. The Border Guard has search and rescue (SAR) duties, both maritime and inland. The Guard operates SAR helicopters that are often used in inland SAR, in assistance of a local fire and rescue department or other authorities. The Border Guard shares border control duties with Finnish Customs, which inspects arriving goods, and the Finnish Police, which enforces immigration decisions such as removal.
Swedish border police: Border control duties in Sweden are handled by a special group in the police force. Sweden has natural land borders only to Norway and Finland, where there are no border controls, so border surveillance is not done there apart from customs control. Therefore, border control is focused on some fixed control points, during the border control-less Schengen period until 2015 mainly airports. The introduction of full border control from Denmark and the continent in 2015 put a heavy load on the border police who had to check 8000 cars and 50 trains per day coming over the Öresund Bridge, and 3000 cars in Helsingborg and more in other ferry ports. The police quickly educated several hundred semi-authorised border control guards who had to ask the real officers to take over any doubtful case. The customs office and the coast guard can not do formal border controls, but can stop people in doubtful cases and ask police to take over.
The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, or ICA, is the border control agency of Singapore under the Ministry of Home Affairs.[418] The ICA is responsible for border control, border customs services, and immigration enforcement in Singapore.[419][420] ICA is accountable to Parliament through the Minister for Home Affairs. The agency is in charge of maintaining all border checkpoints[aa] in Singapore. In addition, ICA handles anti-terrorism operations and is responsible for many visa and residence related aspects of border control.
Certain border control policies of various countries have been the subject of controversy and public debate.
Since the implementation of added security measures in the aftermath of the 2001 World Trade Centre attacks, reports of discrimination against people perceived to be Muslim by American border security officers have been prevalent in the media.[424] The travel restrictions implemented during the Trump presidency primarily against Muslim majority countries have provoked controversy over whether such measures are a legitimate Border security measure or unethically discriminatory.
_2.jpg)
In April 2018, as part of its "zero tolerance" policy, the American government ordered the separation of the children of refugees and asylum seekers from their parents (Spanish: Política de separación de familias inmigrantes en los Estados Unidos). As a consequence of popular outrage,[ac], and criticism from the medical[ad] and religious[ae] communities, the policy was put on hold by an executive order signed by President Trump on 20 June 2018. Under the policy, federal authorities separated children from their parents, relatives, or other adults who accompanied them in crossing the border, whether apprehended during an illegal crossing or, in numerous reported cases, legally presenting themselves for asylum.[435] The policy involved prosecuting all adults detained at the Mexican border, imprisoning parents, and handing minors to the American Department of Health and Human Services (Spanish: Departamento de Salud y Servicios Sociales de los Estados Unidos).[436] The federal government reported that the policy resulted in the separation of over 2300 children from their parents.[437][438]
The Trump administration blamed Congress for the atrocity and labelled the change in policy as "the Democrats' law", even though Congress had been overwhelmingly dominated by Republicans since 2016. Regardless, members of both parties criticised the policy and detractors of the Trump administration emphasise the fact there does not seem to be any written law that required the government to implement such a policy.[439][440] Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in defending the policy, quoted a passage from the Bible, notwithstanding the fact that religious doctrine carries absolutely no weight in American law.[440] Other officials praised the policy as a deterrent to unlawful immigration.[441][442]
The costs of separating migrant children from their parents and keeping them in "tent cities" are higher than keeping them with their parents in detention centres.[443] To handle the large amount of immigration charges brought by the Trump administration, federal prosecutors had to divert resources from other crime cases.[444] It costs $775 per person per night to house the children when they are separated but $256 per person per night when they are held in permanent HHS facilities and $298 per person per night to keep the children with their parents in immigration detention centres.[443] The head of the Justice Department's major crimes unit in San Diego diverted staff from drug smuggling cases.[444] Drug smuggling cases were also increasingly pursued in state courts rather than federal courts, as federal prosecutor were increasingly preoccupied with pursuing charges against illegal border crossings.[444] The Kaiser Family Foundation said that costs associated with the policy may also divert resources from programmes within the Department of Health and Human Services.[445] In July 2018, it was reported that HHS had diverted at least $40 million from its health programs to care for and reunify migrant children, and that the HHS was preparing to shift more than $200 million from other HHS accounts.[446]
Starting primarily in the 1990s, the Bhutanese government implemented strict restrictions on Nepali residents and implemented internal border control policies to restrict immigration or return of ethnic Nepalis. This policy shift effectively ended previously liberal immigration policies with regards to Nepalis and counts amongst the most racialised border control policies in Asia.
Border control, both on entry and on exit, at Israeli airports rate passengers' potential threat to security using factors including nationality, ethnicity, and race.[447][448] Instances of discrimination against Arabs, people perceived to be Muslim, and Russian Jews amongst others have been reported in the media.[449][450] Security at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport relies on a number of fundamentals, including a heavy focus on what Raphael Ron, former director of security at Ben Gurion, terms the "human factor", which he generalised as "the inescapable fact that terrorist attacks are carried out by people who can be found and stopped by an effective security methodology."[451] As part of its focus on this so-called "human factor," Israeli security officers interrogate travellers, profiling those who appear to be Arab based on name or physical appearance.[452] Even as Israeli authorities argue that racist, ethnic, and religious profiling are effective security measures, according to Boaz Ganor, Israel has not undertaken any known empirical studies on the efficacy of the technique of racial profiling.[453]
Beginning in 2001, Australia implemented border control policies featuring the detention of asylum seekers and economic migrants who arrived unlawfully by boat in nearby islands in the Pacific. These policies are controversial and in 2017 the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea declared the detention centre at Manus Island to be unconstitutional.[454][455] The adherence of these policies to international human rights law is a matter of controversy.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia adopted a policy of denying entry to its own citizens arriving from jurisdictions perceived to pose a high risk of COVID-19 transmission.[165] Additionally, Australia adopted a broad policy of restricting entry to the country for all individuals located overseas, including Australian citizens, resulting in a large number of Australian citizens stranded abroad.[166] Australia's policies with regard to its own citizens undermined the principle in international law that a state must permit entry to its own citizens, as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. At the same time, the Australian government prohibited the majority of Australian citizens from exiting the country, even if they ordinarily reside overseas.[456]
China does not currently recognise North Korean defectors as refugees and subjects them to immediate deportation if caught. The China-DPRK border is fortified and both sides aim to deter refugees from crossing. This aspect of Chinese border control policy has been criticised by human rights organisations.[457][458]
As a result of Northern Cyprus's sovereignty dispute with Southern Cyprus, the South (a member of the European Union) has imposed restrictions on the North's airports, and pressure from the European Union has resulted in all countries other than Turkey recognising the South's ability to impose a border shutdown on the North, thus negating the right to self determination of the predominantly Turkish Northern Cypriot population and subjecting their airports to border controls imposed by the predominantly Greek South.[459] As a result, Northern Cyprus is heavily dependent on Turkey for economic support and is unable to develop a functioning economy.[460]
Albania — 90 days;
Antigua and Barbuda — 30 days; USD 100 visa waiver fee applies.
Belize — 30 days; USD 50 visa waiver fee applies.
Bosnia and Herzegovina — 30 days;[272] Canada — up to 6 months; only for citizens of Brazil, arriving by air with Electronic Travel Authorisation (eTA).
Chile — 90 days; for nationals of China only.
Colombia — 90 days; applicable to certain nationalities only. Costa Rica — 30 days or less if the visa is about to expire; must hold a multiple entry visa.
Dominican Republic — 90 days; El Salvador — 90 days; not applicable to all nationalities.
Georgia — 90 days within any 180-day period;
Guatemala — 90 days; not applicable to all nationalities.
Honduras — 90 days; not applicable to all nationalities.
Jamaica — 30 days; not applicable to all nationalities. Mexico — 180 days;[273][274]
Montenegro — 30 days;
Nicaragua — 90 days; not applicable to all nationalities.
North Macedonia — 15 days;
Oman — certain nationalities can obtain an electronic Omani visa if holding a valid US visa. Panama — 30/180 days; must hold a visa valid for at least 2 more entries.
Peru — 180 days; applicable to nationals of China and India only.
Philippines — 7 days for nationals of China from the mainland; 14 days for nationals of India.
Qatar — Non-visa-free nationals can obtain an electronic travel authorisation for 30 days if holding a valid US visa.
São Tomé and Príncipe — 15 days;
Serbia — 90 days; South Korea — 30 days; Republic of China[k] (Taiwan) — certain nationalities, including Indian citizens, can obtain an online travel authorisation if holding a valid American visa.
Turkey — certain nationalities can obtain an electronic Turkish visa if holding a valid US visa.
UAE — Visa on arrival for 14 days; for nationals of India only. (Applicable for Indian citizens holding US Green Card.)[275] Abu Dhabi International Airport (AUH)* Calgary International Airport (YYC) Dublin Airport (DUB)* Edmonton International Airport (YEG) Halifax Stanfield International Airport (YHZ) Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport (YUL) Ottawa Macdonald–Cartier International Airport (YOW)
Queen Beatrix International Airport, Aruba (AUA)* Shannon Airport (SNN)* Lynden Pindling International Airport, Bahamas (NAS)* Toronto Pearson International Airport (YYZ) Vancouver International Airport (YVR) Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport (YWG)
((cite book)): CS1 maint: others (link)
((cite book)): External link in |author=((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
((cite book)): CS1 maint: others (link)
[T]he Convention also provides for the issuance of travel documents, this time to stateless persons who are lawfully staying in the territory of a contracting state. The so-called Convention Travel Document (CTD) is designed to function in lieu of a passport—a document that is generally unavailable to stateless persons since it is usually issued by the country of nationality.
((cite book)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
((cite book)): |website= ignored (help)
((cite journal)): CS1 maint: PMC embargo expired (link)
((cite journal)): Check |author-link6= value (help)
((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
((cite web)): CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
((cite web)): CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
((cite news)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
((cite news)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
((cite news)): Missing or empty |title= (help)