The state department wants to make it more difficult to get a US passport...

Apparently, questions like this have always been asked in the US if you didn't have a birth certificate.

In retrospect, when my passport was stolen in Italy and I had to go for an interview at the Embassy the questions were similar. 

What was your high school mascot, where did you go to elementary school, what was the street like that you grew up on, a whole bunch of questions about Penn State.  I think some questions about my grandparents, where were your parents born. 

It took about five minutes and I left with my US passport, so I was happy.  It was only good for a year, extended when I got home and showed them an old passport.

I think there's a big difference between oral questions asked when a passport is stolen and written questions about your mother's medical history and the name of every supervisor for every job you've ever had, plus religious questions.  This form will go in a file or on a computer somewhere and the government will then have information that is none of their business about people forever.

And the questions I answered were recorded.

But if it is reported correctly, then it is only for people who have no birth certificate and no registration of their birth for at least a year. 

They have to use something to prove you are a citizen.  Also, according to the article you don't need to answer all the questions.  You just need to provide some official evidence from somewhere that you were born in the US.

When you apply for a passport for your child from abroad, you are also asked a series of random questions about your past...things that are none of their business...and this is when you are already required to provide your birth certificate or passport to prove that you are a US Citizien.

As bookgrl states, it doesn't really seem all that absurd when you put it into perspective (i.e. it's not going to be for every single applicant but for the - assumingly - rare number of people who don't meet the birth certificate requirements).  Yes some of it does seem over the top (like what does your life's employment history have to do with proving you are a US citizen?) but some of them the questions do seem relevant to proving you are a USC.

I think they just wanted to give people a variety of options.  If your documents were destroyed and you didn't get baptised what else do you have I guess? 

It supposedly has a line at the bottom stating that your passport will not be withheld if you refuse to answer some of the questions. 

As long as it is not abused, it might be easier than not knowing what they want if you don't have a birth certificate.

But if it is reported correctly, then it is only for people who have no birth certificate and no registration of their birth for at least a year.

Practically every single adoptee has a birth certificate filed after a year past their date of birth. Nevermind the fact that the "parents" and "mother"'s names are false and not actually who you are born to, and I don't think such a thing as a long form birth certificate exists for adoptees. Besides the fact that other information such as date and place of birth can be changed.

Putting that issue aside, this proposed form is discriminatory in several ways. Adults who were in foster care? People who have been homeless, transient? They can't answer this. People whose parents are dead? Didn't have prenatal care?

Adding to that, are they seriously going to check every single answer? /No one/ could answer this form in its entirety. So basically it could function as a way to arbitrarily deny someone a passport.

As I said, and perhaps you missed it, you don't need to fill out the form entirely.

Also, if you have a birth certificate it is fine.  It is just if you don't have a birth certificate AND your birth wasn't registered for over a year. 

So my grandmother's birth wasn't registered because they lived on a farm and couldn't be bothered until the next kid was born two-ish years later and her birth certificate was lost in a fire.

All that said, it doesn't appear it would affect immigrants at all, since they would have proof of citizenship in the form of their certificate.

Not immigrants - people with brown skin. It turns out non-white people can be natural born citizens. Places like Arizona with their law demanding that anyone who is suspected of being an illegal immigrant having to provide documentation that they're here legally is that most natural born citizens don't have documents to that effect since you need your original birth certificate (which a lot of people don't have and can't be used as ID) or a passport (which most people don't have).

People in minority communities and rural communities are less likely to have birth certificates and Latinos, especially in border states, are more likely to fall into both categories. When they're told "prove you're here legally or you'll be thrown in INS detention and deported without due process" they have to produce a green card (which natural born citizens don't have) or a passport. And this would make it more difficult for them to get a passport.

That's why I think this is aimed at making life more difficult for people with brown skin.

Not immigrants - people with brown skin. It turns out non-white people can be natural born citizens. Places like Arizona with their law demanding that anyone who is suspected of being an illegal immigrant having to provide documentation that they're here legally is that most natural born citizens don't have documents to that effect since you need your original birth certificate (which a lot of people don't have and can't be used as ID) or a passport (which most people don't have).

People in minority communities and rural communities are less likely to have birth certificates and Latinos, especially in border states, are more likely to fall into both categories. When they're told "prove you're here legally or you'll be thrown in INS detention and deported without due process" they have to produce a green card (which natural born citizens don't have) or a passport. And this would make it more difficult for them to get a passport.

That's why I think this is aimed at making life more difficult for people with brown skin.

What Arizona is doing is absolutely shameful.

I think there's a big difference between oral questions asked when a passport is stolen and written questions about your mother's medical history and the name of every supervisor for every job you've ever had, plus religious questions.  This form will go in a file or on a computer somewhere and the government will then have information that is none of their business about people forever.

Its not a religious question, it's to confirm your identity.  As I mentioned before, baptismal records are a common way to identify someone (same in the UK). 

I can understand people are unhappy with the amount of information the form is asking for (in the absence of a birth certificate and/or a birth registered after a year), but I think it needs to be taken at face-value.  There's nothing wrong with the government trying to establish your identity in the absence of proper documentation.  I don't think there is any intention to deny US citizens passports.

Noirem-
Minorities are not less likely to have birth certificates, as long as they had a birth in hospital and many do despite not having insurance.  Home births are becoming more common in the US and that does not stop people getting proper birth certificates.  If anything, the government is trying to stop the illegal birth holiday schemes, which generally attract rich foriegners who come over to the US to have a child. 

From what I can see this mainly started on winger websites and the mainstream media picked it up from there.  If this happened under Bush's regime, it would have been framed as good security policy and protecting America from the terrorists.  I really don't think this is an illegal immigration policy but rather a strengthening of the way we document our identity.  It's been something that has been happening since before 9/11, but especially since then.  Yeah, it's becoming increasingly hard to take up a fake identity.  Whether or not that's a good thing is probably really comes down to whether or not you ever want to try to assume the identity of a long dead kiddo and drop your given one.

I am also an adoptee, and I don't anticipate any problems with my birth certificate.  Although I was adopted by my birth father and step-mother (as was more common for fathers to have to do before fairly recently), I don't think it was handled any differently than a stranger adoption.  For all intents and purposes my BC lists my step-mother as my parent and no one without the clout to get into family court records would know the difference.  Of course, an adoptee with a home birth might run into problems, but if you were born in the hospital or were registered in a timely manner, you shouldn't have any more problems than someone who wasn't adopted.

I had a relevation this morning.  Aside from the fact that I spend too much time on the internet.

Since you now need a passport to go to Canada and Mexico and since there are a number of religious communties (Amish/Mennonites/FLDS) that have groups in Mexico and Canada and since those religious groups have homebirths and often do not regisiter their children with the state how do they now prove that their kids are citizens?  Religious certificates.  Asking who was at the birth because these communites often use known midwives or elders in the church. 

Also, there is a not very large, but growing, (and, in my opinion, annoying) group of shall we say hippies/society drop-outs/off the griders (and throw in there Quiver-full people) who homebirth and feel that is the child's right to decide whether to interact with society once they come of age. 

They don't give birth in hospitals, not all states require you to register births at all. So what do we say?  Sorry kid, your mom thought the gov't was going to implant a chip in your hand so you never get to escape her bad choices and go to France? 

Or do we give them some options, NOT ALL of which they need to provide, as the form clearly states and hope that they remember that Mommy probably also didn't get them vaccinated and there is a measles outbreak in Western Europe right now.

Bookgrl-I was sort of thinking the same thing this morning, but for a different reason.

Case in point, my brother, under the current regulations, does not have sufficient evidence of identity to get a passport (foreign birth, BC and registration cert lost); however, the new biological questionaire may allow him to get one based on other identifiable factors--ie. baptismal records, mother's info, etc..  It would certainly make his application easier.   

I can't help thinking that "they" probably have all this information on you anyway 

They most certainly do not.  Where exactly would all this information be held for all US citizens?  Who would be verifying it?  Why do doctors/former employers/religious members not report how often they are called by government agencies to verify all this information? 

In order to collect/verify/input/locate all this information on each citizen almost every citizen would need to be working for the government.