> 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.
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.