Text and/or other creative content from this version of Internal passport was copied or moved into Internal passport of Russia with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.

Here we read:

Russian passport contains the same information (well, except for a place for a fingerprint). What's the difference between an internal passport and an ID card? Alæxis_¿question? 17:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the key point about an internal passport is that it is used to prevent unauthorised changes of residency. It does not just say where you live, but also the areas you are allowed to live.--Rumping (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that if you change your place of permanent residence you have to update the ID card. Similarly in Russia you have to register and get a stamp in the passport. As far as I see there's no difference in principle, only in the amount of red tape you must overcome to achieve this :) Alæxis_¿question? 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the position in modern Russia, but previously in imperial Russia and the Soviet Union (and similarly in China, South Africa etc.) it was not a matter of moving location and then informing the authorities. It was a matter of seeking permission first, which would often be refused as a matter of internal control, whether of individuals, ethnic groups or economic classes. Internal passports would document which areas an individual had permission to be in.--Rumping (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the use of bureaucratic mechanisms to disenfranchise voters. While obvious to the "reasonable man"[sic; person], some of those participating in disenfranchisement sit on some nation's Supreme Court and use their power, as non-partisan defenders of their country's constititutional law, to undermine that country's democratic basis in favor of their golf buddies. Something doth prosper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1401:8524:4ACF:C95F:3056:8311 (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"De facto citizens have no hindrance to reside at another address than registered within the same city. However, many inhabitants of rented dwellings refuse official registration at new addresses because of landlords' tax evasion, which also allows for cheaper rents." -- In copy-editing this article, I found these sentences and have no idea what they mean. I left them as-is, but perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the situation in Russia could clarify? Yourstruly42 (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

I think in addition to the photo of historical internal passports that headlines the article, it would be nice if someone could supply a photo of a current internal passport from a country that still uses them, i.e. Russia. (With personal details obscured of course.) I suspect many readers including myself have no idea what one looks like. Giordano Bruno (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Ukraine and Uzbekistan-related sentences because they are on the topic of propiska, wihch is a distinct topic covered in respective article(s).--91.103.66.208 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The China section seems very doubtful, too. I gather, Home Return Permits are something else than internal passports. If they are, then why are they described here instead of the Chinese internal passports themselves?--91.103.66.208 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed China... There is a separate article on Hukou, and Home Return Permits. Hukou is enforced by national identity cards, and home return permits are external permits and are not compulsory documents.

Roadrunner (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author’s text in this section implies that the passport exchange happened in no time at all, at the end of 2002! I edited the text because it appeared that a paragraph had been inserted and hod broken the original author’s flow, but I didn’t change the factual information because I don’t have sources on which to base any new rendering. — Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's never been an internal passport in the UK, including a reference to a polemic from a newspaper columnist under a heading with the country name seems misleading. In fact, the whole UK section could be removed, as there was never any suggestion that the proposed UK ID card would have restricted movement. 199.4.27.122 (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firmly agreed here. Despite the name, vaccine "passports" don't restrict movement between regions. Instead, they restrict activities (akin to a driver's license), and so are unrelated to the contents of this article. 2607:FEA8:1C1F:9A80:5527:B7E1:2D27:77EB (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody please tell me why it is a "misconception"? I live in Russia and I can assure you that permanent registration and permanent propiska(inscribing) is in fact the same thing. There is simply no difference whatsoever.--Reciprocist (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internal passport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031005042354/http://www.dontspyonus.com/galileo.html to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/2461267

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could the need for Real ID-complaint state issued documents count as a kind of internal passport, since it will be needed for domestic flights and to enter secure federal facilities? I mean an alternative would be the U.S. passport in either booklet or card form. -- sion8 ^{talk page} 08:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The country list doesn't include - Countries like Canada, which did have restrictions on movements and passports to show for it

The country list does include - Countries like Italy, which did not have restrictions on movements but did have passports to show for it

The country list doesn't include - Countries like Vietnam, which did/does have restrictions on movements, but no passports to show for it

The country list does include - Countries like Russia, which does not have restrictions on movements, and never did have passports to show for it

Confused about this list honestly. Russia's ID card is no different to others, and does not restrict movement (except Closed cities) and isn't even required to be carried around like other countries like for example Belgium (which despite mandatory carrying, doesn't restrict migration or movement) ... on the other hand, countries which did not have serious laws but did have serious enforcement of anti-movement like Canada aren't listed, but countries which did have serious laws but do not have serious enforcement like China are listed. China is listed because it's a law (even though it's not enforced) but Canada is not listed because it was never a law (despite being enforced?) 82.19.153.78 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]