"Not to defend the US Immigration service, but those samples aren't comparable - one is orders of magnitude larger and less reliable."
Not to defend the climate of fear generated by media scare stories, but it's more complex than that - the problem isn't that every once in a while someone screws up; the problem is that it can happen at all and they're not screw-ups, it's policy.
Everyone knows someone with a story about some horrible entry into the US. The fact that it happens at all, the idea that all "foreigners" are untrustworthy terrorists-in-disguise to be treated with suspicion and contempt, slowly sinks in. This is a very powerful antidote to the "land of the free" rhetoric, which starts to seem like a myth in itself - one media illusion demolishing another, if you will.
And it's just this, I don't know, malicious arrogance to the whole thing. From the very beginning, to be treated in that way, and for such treatment to be institutionalised and officially accepted, even encouraged, as the price to pay for the privilege of being allowed to enter the country? After a while anyone with any pride at all is forced to consider whether America is such a shining utopia to be worth rolling the dice every time you dare to try and get into the place. And as countries like India and China grow in wealth and stature, the pride of their citizens rises too.
But it's not just the risk of drawing the short straw on the "your name reminds us of something" list, every single visitor faces invasive biometric ID procedures to be kept for god knows how long, shared with god knows who, and used for god knows what purpose.
I am an Australian citizen from birth (a country which is a longtime ally of the USA and actually the only country who has fought alongside her in every war for a century), non religious, educated and of sufficient means. If I want to enter the US I face being photographed and my fingerprints taken like a common criminal. Jokes about convict ancestry aside - do you have any idea what kind of message that sends?
Whatever the intention is, I understand it as meaning that foreigners are not wanted in the USA, and I'm happy to oblige. You might think that sounds ridiculous and childish, taking such an impersonal message personally and all that, but think about it. Would you choose to visit a country that treats you like that, all other things being equal, which they pretty much are?
> Everyone knows someone with a story about some horrible entry into the US.
Everyone knows someone who has a friend who knew the guy who tried to dry his poodle in the microwave.
I'm not saying that Immigration and/or Homeland Security is great, but the rumor-mongering is unjustified.
> the problem is that it can happen at all and they're not screw-ups, it's policy.
And you know this because....
> I am an Australian citizen from birth
Ah, Australia. I know a Stanford CS PhD student who was put through hell by the Australian equivalent of US Immigration/Homeland Security because she wanted to visit a guy who she met while he was in the US. They were concerned that she might want to stay, contaminate the gene pool, or somesuch. (She's pretty and white, so they weren't applying any sort of appearance standard.)
Really. I actually know her. And, you should have paid her to emmigrate because she is seriously talented. And yes, she was seriously pissed.
Nevertheless, I don't get hysterical about it. I'm looking forward to diving the Great Barrier Reef in a couple of years.
> If I want to enter the US I face being photographed and my fingerprints taken like a common criminal.
I don't know how things are in Australia, but we can't identify criminals and the like without actually checking. (For some reason, they don't mention that in their visa application.)
> I don't know how things are in Australia, but we can't identify criminals and the like without actually checking.
Interesting viewpoint. Would you have a problem with having your photograph and fingerprints taken whenever you boarded a domestic flight? I'm sure they'd catch plenty of criminals that way too.
> Interesting viewpoint. Would you have a problem with having your photograph and fingerprints taken whenever you boarded a domestic flight? I'm sure they'd catch plenty of criminals that way too.
It's interesting that you think that domestic travel and crossing a national border are the same.
I know that Australia is concerned about young women visiting. Does it also care about criminals? Does it have any checks?
And, if it does, I'm sure that you're fighting any that aren't applied to domestic travel, right?
"It's interesting that you think that domestic travel and crossing a national border are the same."
You're deliberately missing his point.
His point is that if your objective is to catch criminals, and in pursuit of that goal you're willing to set up checkpoints to collect fingerprints, and you're the US authorities primarily concerned with US criminals - wouldn't it be far better to set up those checkpoints inside the country?
It would be, and so obviously these fingerprint checks are not to catch criminals.
And before you say it, no, I can't prove that, I am merely using deduction to make an argument for use in debate, which I believe is the point of this site.
"I know that Australia is concerned about young women visiting. "
Oh yes, from your personal anecdote about one (1) person. Australia is not perfect but you would be hard pressed to find much evidence, even anecdotal, that on balance it even comes close to the oppresive US border experience.
And personally I am firmly in favour of as many young women visiting as possible : )
"Does it also care about criminals? Does it have any checks?"
Yes, of course, and yes, it has checks. I am assuming you're a US Citizen - you'd need an ETAS visa; you apply in advance, pay some nominal fee, and the check is performed before you even get on the plane. Your visa is then automatically keyed to your personal information and passport number.
Australian citizens need a similar visa from the US, which is called USVISIT. The fingerprints are then taken upon arrival regardless, making everyone wonder what the damn point of the visa was in the first place.
And Australian passports are electronically encoded with biometric information, btw, and are very hard to fake. It would be much easier to simply fake the fingerprints, as Japan has discovered (one South Korean was recently arrested after entering Japan using fake fingerprints five times).
"And, if it does, I'm sure that you're fighting any that aren't applied to domestic travel, right?"
A spurious strawman argument which I won't respond to.
> His point is that if your objective is to catch criminals, and in pursuit of that goal you're willing to set up checkpoints to collect fingerprints, and you're the US authorities primarily concerned with US criminals - wouldn't it be far better to set up those checkpoints inside the country?
The US has no laws against criminals travelling (assuming that they're not being pursued). It has laws against people with certain characteristics entering the country.
In short, the "catch criminals" premise was wrong.
"Everyone knows someone who has a friend who knew the guy who tried to dry his poodle in the microwave."
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not talking about some urban legend that gets passed through 10 generations of "friends of friends", I'm saying that many people have had bad experiences with US Immigration, and word gets around. I personally know someone who now enters the US by land via Canada because of his repeated horrendous experiences at the air border.
"I'm not saying that Immigration and/or Homeland Security is great, but the rumor-mongering is unjustified."
Rumours? It goes a bit beyond rumours, don't you think? It's large-scale and well-documented. Personal anecdotes alone do not make something true, but that's not the case here. The personal anecdotes just add a more of a "this could happen to me" dimension to otherwise abstract reports of it happening to someone else.
"And you know this because...."
Because .. it's self evident and obviously true? What are you trying to say - that the hostile suspicion of foreigners at the US Border is not policy?
"I know a Stanford CS PhD student who was put through hell by the Australian equivalent of US Immigration/Homeland Security"
I'm not trying to say we're much better, although at least we don't fingerprint. I have many (in some cases personally witnessed/experienced) grievances against the Australian system.
No need to turn this into a "my country is better than yours" pissing match, I have a real fondness for America and wouldn't even bother having a strong opinion if I didn't care ; )
"Nevertheless, I don't get hysterical about it."
Sigh. I hope I didn't come across as hysterical. I put a bit of emotion into my writing in an attempt to get the point across that it's important to me, not as a sign that I have taken leave of my senses.
"I don't know how things are in Australia, but we can't identify criminals and the like without actually checking."
Huh? We're talking about the US Border, specifically about foreigners trying to visit, many who have never been there before. Are you suggesting that there is a huge list of outstanding arrest warrants for foreign criminals whose faces and fingerprints are on record, and this system is an attempt to catch them? Or that US Border agents are cooperating with overseas police forces to catch escaping criminals or something?
Of course not. I actually don't know why they do it. The whole thing is post-9/11 so I suppose it's part of the "war on terror", but surely the number of "terrorists" who are on the run but whose fingerprints have somehow been recorded is vanishingly small.
Anyway, I hope that with the new administration in charge and the memory of 9/11 receding, this horrible system will be turned off.
> Because .. it's self evident and obviously true? What are you trying to say - that the hostile suspicion of foreigners at the US Border is not policy?
As I suspected, you're guessing - it's sort of like fundamental attribution error.
> Huh? We're talking about the US Border, specifically about foreigners trying to visit, many who have never been there before.
How does immigration/homeland security know that someone has never been to the US before? (Hint: their passport isn't reliable information.)
And, if the US isn't trading fingerprint info with everyone it can, it isn't doing its job.
BTW - The US does collect fingerprints overseas in certain countries. However, thanks to discrimination laws, it can't just check fingerprints of folks who look like they might be from those places.
If you argued that we're practicing "security theater", not security, you wouldn't get an argument from me.
> Anyway, I hope that with the new administration in charge and the memory of 9/11 receding, this horrible system will be turned off.
"As I suspected, you're guessing - it's sort of like fundamental attribution error."
I don't think so. It's merely the most likely explanation. I note you haven't advanced any competing theories. However, not like I have any hard evidence, so consider the point retracted if it bothers you.
(various points about fingerprint collection)
Well, everything you say is true, as far as it goes. My point is not that fingerprint collection is utterly useless and no case whatsoever can be made for its enactment. What I am trying to say is that it is an extreme tactic with high costs, not least of which that it turns people off visiting the US at all, and its benefits are nebulous and require a lot of unlikely "what-if" scenarios to pay off at all. Meanwhile, the data collected is, IMO, very dangerous.
Ah, I see you've heard of the term "security theatre". Yes, that's exactly what it is, and a very damaging and costly act it is too.
"Be ready to be disappointed."
I am, but I don't think it's impossible that the draconian entry procedures will be dropped. They're really a product of paranoia and irrational fear; this dissipates in time.
When the drumbeat of terrorism scaremongering has died down a bit, and the post-crisis economic reality has dawned on everyone, it might well occur to the leaders of the country that perhaps they can't afford to throw away tourist and business dollars on misguided security theatre any more. It might take a while, but economic pragmatism wins out every time.
I agree, but there's different levels of "broken". The photography and fingerprinting is an egregious breach of privacy and dignity and surely puts the US (and Japan, btw) at the front of the pack in terms of just how broken the system is.
Not to defend the climate of fear generated by media scare stories, but it's more complex than that - the problem isn't that every once in a while someone screws up; the problem is that it can happen at all and they're not screw-ups, it's policy.
Everyone knows someone with a story about some horrible entry into the US. The fact that it happens at all, the idea that all "foreigners" are untrustworthy terrorists-in-disguise to be treated with suspicion and contempt, slowly sinks in. This is a very powerful antidote to the "land of the free" rhetoric, which starts to seem like a myth in itself - one media illusion demolishing another, if you will.
And it's just this, I don't know, malicious arrogance to the whole thing. From the very beginning, to be treated in that way, and for such treatment to be institutionalised and officially accepted, even encouraged, as the price to pay for the privilege of being allowed to enter the country? After a while anyone with any pride at all is forced to consider whether America is such a shining utopia to be worth rolling the dice every time you dare to try and get into the place. And as countries like India and China grow in wealth and stature, the pride of their citizens rises too.
But it's not just the risk of drawing the short straw on the "your name reminds us of something" list, every single visitor faces invasive biometric ID procedures to be kept for god knows how long, shared with god knows who, and used for god knows what purpose.
I am an Australian citizen from birth (a country which is a longtime ally of the USA and actually the only country who has fought alongside her in every war for a century), non religious, educated and of sufficient means. If I want to enter the US I face being photographed and my fingerprints taken like a common criminal. Jokes about convict ancestry aside - do you have any idea what kind of message that sends?
Whatever the intention is, I understand it as meaning that foreigners are not wanted in the USA, and I'm happy to oblige. You might think that sounds ridiculous and childish, taking such an impersonal message personally and all that, but think about it. Would you choose to visit a country that treats you like that, all other things being equal, which they pretty much are?