Homeland Security To Scan Citizens Exiting US 676
An anonymous reader writes "The US Department of Homeland Security is set to kickstart a controversial new pilot to scan the fingerprints of travellers departing the United States. From June, US Customs and Border Patrol will take a fingerprint scan of travellers exiting the United States from Detroit, while the US Transport Security Administration will take fingerprint scans of international travellers exiting the United States from Atlanta. The controversial plan to scan outgoing passengers — including US citizens — was allegedly hatched under the Bush Administration. An official has said it will be used in part to crack down on the US population of illegal immigrants."
Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
"An official has said it will be used in part to crack down on the US population of illegal immigrants"
Why not just let them leave? And bar them when they try to come back. What is the point of catching someone you don't want in the country when they are leaving it??
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, the fact that a fair few Americans are more xenophobic than they are freedom-loving presents a golden opportunity...
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd argue that a lot of people are letting their fear of immigrants drive them right into that.
History will likely judge our allowance of illegal immigration and the creation of a de facto second class as the greatest travesty against human rights of late 20th and early 21st century. And will likely be compared to height of slavery in the US of the 19th century.
A government is wrong when a they decide that one group of people don't get the same protection from violent crime, the same basic services, or protection from exploitation. Why would anyone pay an illegal immigrant the state or federal minimum wage? While people certainly have a choice to live here, and are, in my opinion, moving here of their own free will, it is hell of an embarrassment for a major democratic free country to offer people second class citizenship. We have created a multi-generation(no exaggeration) second class sub-society by turning a blind eye to the problem instead of revising their immigration and guest worker system. One of the issues I have with uncontrolled immigration is that when violent criminals(organized drug cartels, rapists, thugs, etc) cross the border unchecked they slip into the communities of illegal immigrations and prey on them. For every 99 people that are peaceful reasonable folks that just want to support their family, there is a monster that follows them like a shadow. In a community where crime is horribly under reported, these monsters can terrorize a community and destroy lives. And the police can do little to stop them if they aren't really here.
People should either work here, after filling out the right paperwork, or not. Creating a new underground society because we're pussy footing around the politics and money related to illegal immigration is just shameful. If we can't make a profit in agriculture by paying people minimum wage to do the labor, then we need to explore more efficient means (more mechanization perhaps?) If paying minimum wage means cheap labor isn't available for building homes and tending to our lawns, we will have to adjust. We managed to build houses in the 40s to 60s by paying a relatively decent wage.
Most of the time I feel the illegal immigration debate is dominated by two opposite but equally irrational forces. Xenophobic hard liners that insist that amnesty for illegal immigrants will induce mass immigration who will "steal" American jobs and flood our healthcare system. And a knee-jerk political crowd that labels anyone who discusses the illegal immigration problem as a bigot and racist, and that we need to do more to support the inevitable influx of people, even if they are undocumented. I think I will label the Xenophobic crowd as redneck bigots, and the Politically Correct crowd as racist shills for corporate America.
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who allegedly did the 9-11 attacks had brown skin and are rather indistinguishable from the brown-skinned people south of the U.S border.
Are you really suggesting that you can't tell the difference between someone from Central America and someone from the Middle East?
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Interesting)
You're kidding, right? While there's certainly individuals in both groups who wouldn't be easily mistaken for being part of the other group, there are definitely individuals in each group whose appearance is more ambiguous.
Besides, there's a lot of Mexicans who look to me just like any northern-European-descended American. Not all Mexicans are directly descended from native Americans, you know. A lot are mostly Spanish, and some are even German. Watch some Spanish-language soap operas on your local spanish-language channel some time: a lot of the people on there don't look much different from Americans, and have rather pale skin.
Lots of people could be easily made to pass as another ethnic group just by changing their clothes and haircut. That's exactly what the Al Queda hijackers did: they cut their hair and shaved their beards. Many middle-easterners don't look that different from many Americans except for their beards. In addition, many Israelis look much like the Arabs who hate them.
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Funny)
And, of course, vice-versa.
Maybe that's the problem: ol' Jehovah couldn't tell which group of Semites he was promising the land to, they all look alike to him after all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, yes. There was one math professor I had (Mr. Samardar) who the kids in class would make a game out of trying to guess where he was from. He was darker-skinned than most white people but not really 'dark', and his accent was light and sounded kind of European(to me, at least). Popular guesses included Egypt and Peru.
Now I just looked him up, it seems he was the chair of the local Iranian-American Association. So there's at least one person who couldn't easily be profiled by looks.
Add to that the fact tha
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Funny)
The word you were looking for there is "facetious", Sparky, not "fescisious".
Does your Dad know you're posting from his Slashdot account?
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
I beg to differ: both mexicans and afghanis are very mixed.
A better question would be, what cultures are left on this planet that aren't racially mixed?
Re:Idiocy (Score:4, Insightful)
The Japanese?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a few countries in Eastern Europe that are so racially uniform it's not even funny.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you'd read the TSA manual, you'd know that "if it's tanned, put your gloves on and tell it to bend over".
And re telling the difference from a Liberian...
Like TSA employees would know where they'd come from... "yeah, right, like there's a place like Liberion, Ya don't fool me! Bend over mister !"
And just when I thought it was safe to go back (or even switch planes) to the US too...
Well, since I'm blond maybe I'll get through despite my French passport (although French bashing seems to have subsided, outsi
As a famous terrorist leader once said... (Score:5, Insightful)
>>I might be less critical of such actions if it weren't for the fact that "security" isn't being improved or actually even being addressed.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Of course, this was also said by a major figure of what we would call, today, an insurgent force, fighting against the established government of the country. He spent much of that war in another country, raising funds to support what those who claimed they had a legitimate government considered to be a terrorist action. By recent standards, for the funding part alone, two guys were sentenced to 65 years, just this week [reuters.com].
His name was Benjamin Franklin [wikiquote.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fundamentalist Christianity doesn't rule US foreign policy. While these people do exist, and have had some influence in the US federal government at various times, it is not as absolute as you paint it to be.
We're far more about pandering to our base, making uninformed decisions, and using sovereign nations as pawns in domestic politics and PR campaigns.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Most of us are justifiably afraid of terrorism? Some Americans are not cowards and are not willing to sacrifice the very living ideals that make the country special for the petty illusion of 'being safe.' 0.001% of the US population were killed when the towers fell. That is definitely a cause for seeking justice, might be a cause for preventative actions and could make some call for revenge, but fear? You have a better chance of dying in the bath.
Get real people. YOU ARE MORTAL SO YOU ARE GOING TO DIE. Make your life worth something instead of cowering from shadows. Prove that you're worth the soldiers' noble sacrifices and their exposure to real danger by shouldering just a little tiny bit of the burden. Fight fear and choose wisdom. Don't call for killing American freedom this way and don't support it when it happens.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure. Terrorism is scary. It's false bravado to claim you aren't worried about it to some degree. YOur stat of 0.001% of the US population dying in a single day is quite a bit. I'm frightened of street crime. It's a rational fear.
Not me. I don't take baths.
You seem to have misunderstood GP's post. He said that was al
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. Terrorism is scary. It's false bravado to claim you aren't worried about it to some degree.
Bullshit. I have one or two orders of magnitude greater chance of dying from heart disease, but I still eat greasy burgers. But I don't fear it enough to stop eating greasy burgers. I have a greater chance of dying on a car accident, but I don't fear it enough to avoid getting in my car everyday to go to work. You're telling me I should fear fucking terrorism enough to inconvenience me to take my shoes off at an airport? Fuck that. I don't, and I can't possibly understand how anyone else in the security line can justify it when they had the courage to drive to the airport and eat mcdonalds for lunch. Hell, the chances of their plane crashing from accidental causes is greater.
Terrorism is a non-threat. When you believe otherwise, you're doing the terrorists a favor because terrorizing you is the whole point.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Terrorism is a non-threat.
That's wrong. Terrorism is a threat. It's just not a very significant one for most people so long as a few simple steps are taken (like not taking random parcels onto planes for strangers) most of which are just plain old common sense anyway.
Yes, have specialist police units watch suspected terrorists. After all we do the same to suspected mobsters and spies too. Also yes to keeping guns and knives out of the cabin (I don't want anyone going postal near to me, and planes are stressful places). But cutting o
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Fear isn't all or nothing. It's stupid not to fear terrorism at all.
No, it is not. If you're going to be afraid of things that have almost no chance of ever affecting you at all, you're not going to live your life normally. In fact, we're NOT living our lives normally because of that stupid fear. We're putting up with crap we would never have put up with before 9/11. Get the number of American deaths due to terrorism (any type, including not on american soil) over the past 10 years. Get the number of American deaths due to traffic accidents over the past 10 years. Then tell me the fear is justified.
19 guys were able to do significant damage to the US. They since have successfully operated in Britain and Spain. Isn't that frightening on some level?
No more than Timothy McVeigh's bombing, but nobody seemed to go batshit insane after that (2 people caused ~600 deaths with the oklahoma city bombing vs 19 people caused ~3000 deaths with 9/11...I'm not sure why this is relevant, but your point seemed to be that because only 19 people caused all that damage, this is something that has never happened before, so I guess I should point out that in actually deaths per person responsible ratios were higher with an event of terrorism that happened before). They found out who was responsible, had a trial and that was that.
Look, I'm not saying law enforcement and intelligence agencies don't need to take steps to try to prevent that type of thing, but it's a pure law enforcement problem. It's like gang violence. You don't change your life because some kid on the other side of your town got shot. You don't change your life because some nutjobs are killing people. You worry about things that actually have a chance of affecting you. You don't want to die of cancer, be afraid of smoking cigarettes. You want to avoid dying in a traffic accident? Try to be a more attentive and careful driver. You're afraid of heart disease? Try to eat healthier. Those steps you take will have a much greater positive effect in your life than getting fingerprinted when you leave the country ever will.
I really don't get it. Some crazed American anarchist bombs a building and people react normally to it (there's grief, there's anger, that's all normal. We don't have a fundamental change and start fingerprinting people who enter the proximity of federal buildings). Some crazed religious nutjobs hijack planes and crash them into buildings and everyone freaks out because they're foreign and hold a religion not of their own and people start thinking it's ok to wiretap our phones without warrants, it's ok to fingerprint americans just because they're leaving the country, it's ok to hold people prisoner without trials...
Also, fear is usally not of death. More people are frightened of public speaking than death.
Alright, "fear of public speaking" is a fear, but it's a completely different fear than fear of death. It gives you some knots in your stomach, depending on your anxiety levels it might even cause you to avoid speaking in public at all. If you're genuinely afraid that you're going to die, you're going to do things that you would never do under any other circumstances. People were jumping off the towers because they'd rather die by splatting in the concrete than in the fire. You're not going to jump off a building because you're rather not make that 3pm presentation. This is my entire point, btw...you should be more scared of traffic accidents than terrorism, just like you should be more scared of death than of public speaking.
Fear of violence, uncontrolled violence, is scarier than dynig at an old age in a medical bed
Seriously? Dying a slow, possibly painful, most likely undignified (being unable to go to the bathroom by yourself) death is scarier to you than 2 minutes of panic followed by a quick death?
Bottom line is that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Most of us are justifiably afraid of terrorism? Some Americans are not cowards and ...
Well, you rather missed the point. In an attempt to avoid a response like yours, I specifically said real terrorism. As opposed to the mere threat of terrorism which we're constantly subjected to by our government and news media, and the tremendous cost of dealing with that (ahem!) "threat." I simply want people to note that our government is generating more fear among the populace than any number of actual terrorists. Also, assuming that the threat is severely overblown, I want to know why they're doing it
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Understood though I did get your original point and I agree with it. My post was not intended to target you, more to question the level to which being terrified by terrorism is justifiable. I don't think it is. You will not die from a terrorist act. Given you aren't in a military occupation that statement is 99.99%+ likely to be true.
Less than 30 years ago we were under much greater threat of widespread death and destruction during the cold war and everyone seemed to understand that giving away all thei
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Interesting)
That being the case ... what, exactly, are they afraid of?
Sane people voting them out of office.
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
Cancer and heart disease have killed somewhere in the neighborhood of ten million people in the past ten years. Over a million people died in accidents in the past decade; about 400,000 of those were killed in motor vehicle accidents.
In the past ten years, about 160,000 people were murdered.
About 30,000 drowned.
Only 2,974 were killed in acts of terrorism carried out by foreign nationals within the U.S.
If you're justifiably afraid of terrorism, you must be justifiably scared shitless of all this other, much more dangerous stuff.
And yet nobody gets all bent out of shape about how we have to suspend habeus corpus to protect ourselves from the dangers of swimming pools, cars, and Big Macs.
So long as we think fearing terrorists is justified, we will want Big Government to protect us. (Never mind that it's the brutal and stupid foreign policy of Big Government that motivates the terrorist's hate.)
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a matter of xenophobia. For most people anyway. Illegal immigration is a very real social and economic problem.
I'd like to second this. I'm not xenophobic -- I support allowing a large number of legal immigrants into the country each year under fairly generous terms. I oppose all forms of ethnic quotas and other restrictive immigration policies. I support giving legal immigrants nearly full access to the benefits of citizenship as soon as they arrive and additional services (if they want) to help them in adjusting to a different country. Hopefully, this is enough to convince people that I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, anti-immigrant.
On the other hand, I am a firm believer in the need to enforce the law with regards to illegal immigrants -- deport them and bar them from reentry. These positions aren't contradictory and, in fact, I see them as complementary -- by increasing legal immigration and throwing out all the illegal immigrants, we will be rewarding those honest people that follow the rules instead of those that decide that they have the right to break the law to get what they want. Those are the kind of people that we ought to be allowing to immigrate. The incentives in our current system are perversely the opposite of this -- it punishes those that want to follow the rules with onerous waits and arbitrary terms while rewarding those that skip in line with amnesty and "safe haven". It's ludicrous, and I blame both the GOP for stymieing legal immigration and the Dems for stymieing systematic attempts to identify and deport illegals and punish unscrupulous employers (only the really negligent, of course -- not every contractor that accepts a forged SSN deserves to get canned, but the ones that intentionally look the other way certainly do).
Such a partisan football is made out of what I thought was just common sense -- it's depressing really. I can't understand it -- I just can't. It's some sort of collective insanity we've entered in this country.
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the contractors who accept forged SSNs and then proceed to duly withhold and file all payroll related taxes?
Don't care. They knowingly accepted a forged SSN and should be punished for violating a fairly simple and straightforward law. Yes, it's nice that they paid taxes, but my main concern with illegal immigration is not taxes -- it's basic fairness.
It is unfair to the legal immigrants who did things according to the rules to allow those that skipped the lines to have the same benefits.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, they didn't accept knowingly forged SSNs. There is only one legal way to check an SSN prior to hire without violating equal opportunity laws - and that is by paying a background check company to run every potential hire (if you only run one race you are in for trouble according to the auditor I spoke with). And even that only works well if the SSN and name are mismatched.
Okay, I've lost my mod points, but I had to respond to this so I could correct this misinformation.
Apparently, too few people have heard of "e-verify" [uscis.gov]. This is how employers are supposed to check whether or not a new hire is legitimately allowed to work in the US. It's free, quick, simple, and secure. It doesn't store or maintain any information about who checked what, it just gives the verification. Some SSNs used by illegal workers are shared around and they often have hundreds of names all under t
For regular people. (Score:5, Interesting)
If a corporation is hurt by a policy, something will be done. If average workers are hurt by a policy, nothing will be done, until the problem can no longer be ignored. It's one of the downplayed societal ills, since illegal immigration has been supported by Republican and Democrat administrations.
Large companies love a huge illegal immigrant population. The state picks up their health and education bills, and the illegal workers accept lower wages that can be used to threaten other workers with.
Small business is what I do. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've run several small companies, grossing from 500k to 6 million. I know about the red tape. I've also worked in larger corporations, and I know about their internal red tape.
What I've come to realize is that large corporations are inherently tyrannical. Further down another poster makes a salient point about China - it's very business friendly because it totally empathizes with the way they operate. Orders come from above and are not to be questioned. Conformity to this tyranny is a prerequisite to be invited to the party, and if you have a problem with the top rung management, good luck getting an audience with them.
Conversely, small businesses like the ones I prefer are far more democratic. The lowest paid employee often has direct contact with the owner. This makes his impact radically different than serving the function of something that has not yet been automated or outsourced. He has room for creativity, room to make a difference in how the business is run. He is a person instead of a process.
Your sig asks how the powerful became powerful in our country. Since we have moved so far away from the democratic ideal, of the rule of law and men being equals in front of it, to celebrating personalities and the new aristocracy of corporate power, the answer is that money has become more important than values. Those who are powerful in today's America accept that early, and exploit as many people as they can to achieve their wealth. The wealthy pass on the spoils of their exploits to their children, who dutifully try to replicate what their ancestors accomplished.
The problem with this system is that it is totally against free market principles. There is no merit or true value from making money from money. That's why usury laws are so important, and also why they vanished from our country early in the 20th century. That's why taxes were always raised when we went to war, to make sure the powerful weren't so quick to send our children off to die. When money is the only vote, what kind of society do you think you will end up with? Does Bill Gates or Steve Jobs really deserve billions of votes compared to the tens of thousands given to a school teacher? A person given these parameters should not be surprised at what the result is - a society that worships wealth and power, and engages in destroying the only check to that power, which is a democratic government.
But the cruellest of our revenue laws, I will venture to affirm, are mild and gentle in comparison of some of those which the clamour of our merchants and manufacturers has extorted from the legislature for the support of their own absurd and oppressive monopolies. Like the laws of Draco, these laws may be said to be all written in blood.
--Adam Smith
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
--Major General Butler, USMC Retired
"War is a Racket"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cut me a break. 95% of the time, the folks fighting against illegal immigration are racist as hell, and automatically label any hispanic person as a probable 'illegal'
Is it an economic problem? Definitely. Is it as bad as people are claiming it to be? Probably not.
The solutions aren't great either. Immigration is something we're either going to have to put up with, or commit some pretty severe human rights violations to correct. (Also, are there many native-born Americans who are willing to pick fruit
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Jesus, people, learn to use Google [nytimes.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm more interested in what they're going to do if I refuse? Throw me out of the country?
Re:Idiocy (Score:4, Informative)
No, they're going to throw you into a room, until after your plane leaves. Then you can go buy another ticket and refuse again...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not just let them leave? And bar them when they try to come back.
Apparently, they already failed at that once. I don't understand this move, but once again it's clear that the US borders are not a privacy dream. Next up: state borders and continental air travel?
I'm so glad I'm not American.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what nation do you live in that allows ppl, including criminals, to come and go freely?
When the primary punishment for being an "illegal alien" is deportation, what exactly are you going to do when you catch them trying to leave? Make them leave?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Interesting)
As to illegals, I have a sister-in-law who was once illegal. She was able to come and go pretty much at will, even though she was illegal. fake IDs (including passports) made all that TRIVIAL.
Re:Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, how can this be about illegal immigrants if they are going to scan US citizens???
Precisely. My post was that this was an absurd rationalization to pander support. He might as well have claimed it would stop child porn too.
One step at a time . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
You can see how they take little baby steps. One at a time. In ten years imagine what will be happening.
Re:One step at a time . . . (Score:5, Funny)
You can see how they take little baby steps. One at a time. In ten years imagine what will be happening.
Border lineups will be days long, and the government will be suing SAP for promising that it would work, based on a fraudulent tech demo that's gone missing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One step at a time . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Weird to see a post from 1999 pop up randomly.
Re:One step at a time . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
So... (Score:2)
At this point the only people not recorded are child molesters living under bridges, oh, wait.
Barriers to leaving a country (Score:5, Insightful)
All countries exercise at least some control over who can enter, but there's only one kind of country that erects barriers to who can leave. How long until you guys build a wall? Oh, apparently you've started already. [globalsecurity.org]
Re:Barriers to leaving a country (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ya this is kinda scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying who can and can't enter is, well, part of being an nation. I would place it akin to an individual being able to decide who can and can't enter their home. Part of being a sovereign nation is you need to be able to decide who is allowed to come in.
However not being able to leave? Well again I'd say it is like a private individual and while you can tell me I can't come in to your house, once you've let me in you have to let me out when I want to go. Barriers for exit are things that are normally associated with extremely oppressive societies. The USSR had very strict border control and it was more to keep their populace in than to keep foreigners out. Thus I see this as a step down a very bad path.
It also raises some serious legal questions for people like me. I am a citizen of two nations, the US and Canada. I have a right to go to either nation. So is it legal for the US to say "No, you can't go to Canada,"? Who are they to tell me I can't go to my country?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The USSR had very strict border control and it was more to keep their populace in than to keep foreigners out. Thus I see this as a step down a very bad path.
You might be interested in this video:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294790/ [imdb.com]
It presents some interesting info on Fascism, and the parallels that have been appearing between the US and Germany(of the past).
Even if you disagree with it (unlikely), it educates on what to watch out for. The rights of the US citizen are slowly slipping away.
Re:i totally agree with your sentiment (Score:5, Informative)
In all fairness, he did say one kind of country, for which I think he meant "viciously authoritarian", or something similar.
Exit Tax (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html [irs.gov]
To leave the country, you have to pay taxes for all of your assets, and renounce your US citizenship if you'd like to stop paying the IRS.
I'm actually in favor of regulations against capital flight, but this is probably going a little too far...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It'll be interesting to see, the first time some guy (or girl) has the stones to tell the customs agent to screw off.
Even better, what happens if your fingerprints DO come up as an illegal alien? Do they not let you leave? Give you a completely redundant kick to speed you on your way?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GP is mostly correct. Most countries require you to go through immigration both on arrival and departure.
I'm an Australian with an American wife and so travel very frequently between the two countries. Both countries require you to go through immigration and customs on arrival (as you would expect). Australia requires you go through immigration upon departure as well (NOT customs). The US doesn't require that you do anything at all upon leaving, however. Frankly I don't know how they keep track of who is in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, "yo, I'm leaving", "yes sir, here, let me stamp your passport."
That's not a barrier to leaving a country, and it's not "customs." Requiring you to be fingerprinted is a whole different league. Interesting that this story shows up alongside another today where some cancer patient was detained because they couldn't get a good set of fingerprints off him. I actually just got back from a conference in Hawaii with this guy who got hassled at the border because he climbs and his fingerprints aren't all t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying you are... yet. It's interesting that your country is building nice big fences and at the same time starting to do things like take your fingerprints when you want to leave. How does that help keep illegals out?"
totalitarianism (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
"We are trying to ensure we know more about who came and who left," [Michael Hardin] said. "We have a large population of illegal immigrants in the United States - we want to make sure the person getting on the plane really is the person the records show to be leaving."
huh? so the epidemic of people pretending to leave the country on commercial flights by booking flights and sending doppelgangers in their place is finally over! rejoice Americans! we are all now super safe!
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Originally Bush was opposed to it, but under congressional pressure relented and agreed to its creation. Ever since then it has done almost nothing except......export illegal immigrants. It does that a lot. So I am theorizing that Bush thought, "Fine. They can build the organization and call it whatever they want, but since I'm in charge, it will DO what I want." And what he wanted was to get rid of illegal immigrants. So that's what happened. Besides a few token operations to live up to its name, it focuses almost entirely on getting rid of illegal immigrants. Has nothing to do with security.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Besides a few token operations to live up to its name, [DHS] focuses almost entirely on getting rid of illegal immigrants. Has nothing to do with security.
Not any more. Why was the DHS at the tax day tea parties in several cities? Here's [infowars.com] one example. This is an agency used by the party ruling the executive branch to intimidate supporters of the opposing party. It was used that way under Bush and sadly is apparently used that way under Obama.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
None of the illegal immigrants I've ever met have arrived by airplane.
This leaves two options: either these guys are really stupid, or the real goal is different from the stated goal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily. There may be people arriving legally on student or tourist visas, and then overstaying them (sometimes permanently).
Still, the way the justification was fomulated leads me to believe something was not said.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
those visa people are ALREADY fingerprinted coming and going
B frankin S (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah this seems like a real efficient way to catch illegal immigrants, I'm sure most of the come to the U.S. to catch international flights from Atlanta and Detroit. That's how dumb the government knows the average person is.
Passport issue (Score:2)
They arlready do this to non US residents (Score:5, Informative)
As someone who occasionally visits your country (with a New Zealand passport and valid work visa), I can tell you that all non-US citizens are already subject to this indignity, for no better reasons than you will be. It's unfortunately just the next step (I've never been fingerprinted going into any other country, or any other time at all for that matter).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been to the US many years ago, before 9/11 - I still have a US Visa in my passport (not needed anymore).
Since then I've moved countries twice and went on vacations (and sometimes business) to countless countries.
Yet I've never again been to the US - I purposefully refuse to travel there because of things like this and I've even been offered a job in Silicon Valley a couple of years ago.
20 or 30 years ago the USA was a nation admired by the vast majority of people out there - a land of dreams for many,
Re: (Score:2)
How does exiting = immigrants? (Score:2)
So how exactly does me LEAVING the country potentially flag me as an illegal immigrant?! Shouldn't you be scanning me as I ENTER the country?!
Free (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free (Score:5, Insightful)
No shit. I was born under communism; I vividly recall the grade school lectures about leaving the country being a crime.
We left there to the land of the free. Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would live to see the day when borders in formerly communist nations are no more and Americans must present the proper papers and fingerprints! to leave the country.
Now you know.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's funny, my mother is a East-German child. Grew up the first 15yrs of her life there, and happily tells me tales of what life was like. I read the article, and felt my BP shoot up about 40pts sitting here, the thought of Americans and someone saying "Papers"(or fingerprints) is chilling.
I didn't think I'd live to see such a flip either. This type of shit is insane, so who let what bat-shit nuts go wild down in the US anyway? Afraid of government? Hell you're letting it walk all over you.
I can't imagine (Score:2)
Re:I can't imagine (Score:5, Funny)
What if you refuse? (Score:5, Interesting)
When you come in to the US, they tell you that you don't have to comply with the checks, but that if you don't you can't enter. So what if you refuse to comply with that one? You can't leave?
Re:What if you refuse? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What if you are a US citizen?
What shoudl happen (Score:4, Interesting)
what a difference 10 years make (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I'm a Canadian, and ten years ago, I would have voted to join the US. I felt that Americans recognised the value of their freedoms and that they had, and would fight to keep, a more free society than just about anywhere else on Earth. Today, I won't even travel there. It reminds me of all those B movies just after WW2 "Achtung! Show me your papers". How could y'all have just let this happen ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"How could y'all have just let this happen ?"
To see how it happened rent the movie "V for Vendeta". It explains it quite nicely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you. I had a couple friends (a couple) who were going up to Canada to camp (from Colorado--long trip). The guy is white, the girl, Latina.
They were detained for half a day, subjected to lots of separate questioning... It turns out that for some reason these yahoos got it in their head that the guy had picked up an underage prostitute in Mexico and was fleeing to Canada. The girl was--and looked--27.
After every conceivable search and interrogation, they finally said "You're free to enter Canada,"
maybe those who are complaining can explain: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:maybe those who are complaining can explain: (Score:5, Insightful)
Precisely because of shit like this.
Now youll know (Score:4, Insightful)
How it feeels.
Can't wait for the first 'catch' (Score:5, Funny)
Brave Homeland Security Officer: Place your thumb here.
Traveler: Ok.
*Presses thumb to scanner*
Brave Homeland Security Officer: Ah-ha! This says that you are in this country illegally! I've got you now!
Traveler/Illegal immigrant: Sooooo... since I'm not allowed to be in this country, do you want me to get on my plane and leave, or what?
Brave Homeland Security Officer: Yes! And, um, never come back! That'll teach you!
Traveler/Illegal immigrant: Yes, this punishment of being delayed from my flight for 30 seconds has surely made me so uncomfortable that I won't ever sneak back into this country. You win.
Your Papers, Please (Score:5, Interesting)
it will be used in part to crack down on the US population of illegal immigrants."
The only way fingerprinting could possibly aid in tracking illegal immigrants is if it was used to track every single US citizen and legal alien. Then anyone caught on the street without their fingerprints in the system is by definition illegal. And even that is only useful if people are routinely fingerprinted on the street. I'm pretty sure there's a name for that kind of system.
The more likely use, down the road a (very short) way, is to make emigration illegal, or at least restricted. There's a name for places where that happens, too.
Everybody likes to talk about police states in the past tense, or in the abstract. Nobody expects the Spa... the real dictatorships. They aren't created all at once out of the blue, and they're seldom openly announced as such.
/. identifies the problem and gives the solution! (Score:3, Interesting)
Movie Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Detroit and Atlanta (Score:3, Informative)
Does NOT apply to US Citizens (Score:3, Informative)
TFA seems to be wrong about this including US citizens. While I think fingerprinting anyone, citizen or not, coming into the country isn't something we should be doing, and certainly not when exiting, the bit about fingerprinting exiting US citizens is found nowhere other than in the article from IT News Australia. The actual DHS press release is very specific that this is a planned extension to US-VISIT and, as such, only applies to non-US-citizens:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=AUSASAIR.story&STORY=/www/story/05-28-2009/0005034173&EDATE=THU+May+28+2009,+01:22+PM [prnewswire.com]
Several additional articles all clearly indicating that this applies only to non-citizens:
http://www.fcw.com/Articles/2009/05/27/Web-US-VISIT-pilots.aspx [fcw.com]
http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20090528_7835.php?oref=rss [nextgov.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, the original article has been updated with an editor's note now to indicate that it does not apply to US citizens. The summary needs to be clarified.
Editor's Note (Score:5, Informative)
Did anyone see the Editor's note? Should probably update the Post.
Editors Note - This story originally contained a representation that the biometrics trial in Atlanta and Detroit included the fingerprint scanning of US citizens. This has since been proved to be incorrect and the story has been modified - only non-US citizens will be expected to provide a biometric record.
Re:Honestly, what's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
"So what if they want to fingerprint travelers entering the country? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint travelers exiting the country? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint travelers changing flights at the country? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint travelers flying past the country? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint drivers? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint cyclists? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint pedestrians? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint everyone? I think this is a good idea"
It's called "unnecessary feature creep". Providing fingerprints at a border helps no more than providing other, non-biometric, information at the border, whether you've just murdered someone or not. Either you're on the database (and thus can be flagged in an instant by having an A.P.B. put out) or you're not. But unnecessary feature creep paves the way to a surveillance society. 50 years ago we didn't even *have* this technology, now it's being made compulsory if you want to fly, drive, cycle, ... and eventually it's just compulsory.
Plus, that data is *personal* under most country's definitions of personal data. In the EU that means it's subject to the Data Protection Act which means I have a legal assurance (whether it's carried out or not is another matter) that the data will be kept private, not be disclosed except for explicit purposes and that only authorised people will see it. The US does not, and never has, provided such guarantees to visitors (even if it intended to break them anyway once they were on paper)
"Please tell me how this is an infringement on your 'rights'?"
I have the right to pass freely through almost every port in the world without undue let or hindrance. The US just removed that. I also have the right to protect my personal information and to refuse to give biometric data if I so wish. That right was just lost. Just because in America you didn't HAVE those rights in the first place, that's no reason to not understand why other people are upset (and we are by definition talking about international travellers here).
"The DHS/ICE already do biometric scanning of all *permanent* residents when they're entering the country, and I mean fingerprinting all the fingers in both of your hands. People with US Passports, by comparison, are waived through, which I think is a incredibly stupid thing."
Yep. Because you've just scanned the fingerprints of someone that, by definition, you have zero record of anywhere else (because they are not a US citizen until that time). Yet you let known criminals walk through because they have a US passport. That's just STUPID. And another nail in the "we need this" coffin. It's an *unnecessary* measure.
"Besides, the EU has been doing this for quite some time. Get over it."
No they haven't. I am an EU citizen and have NEVER provided my fingerprints EVER for ANY purpose in ANY country - I even have a 10 year British passport, a 10-year British driving license (both with EU-certified RFID etc. in them) and never had to provide anything but an authenticated photo and documentation (for the next renewal in a decade's time it might be more tricky to avoid being fingerprinted if people don't stand up to this crap NOW) - and only last year I travelled through 10 countries in the EU within two weeks on a cruise ship. In fact, that's why I'm not flying to the US ever again - that and the "we need the right to copy your laptop data and not tell you what we did with it" - that's a KILLER for me, because it means I would be breaking the law in my own country by disclosing private, personalised business data.
You're throwing a right away every time you say "I don't see a problem with it, so okay". What you should be saying is "I don't see the need. So why should I?". Whethe
Re:They already have my fingerprints.... (Score:5, Informative)
They take your fingerprints when you buy a gun.
No, they don't. Unless you live in a police state like Illinois or something, but if you live there, you have no business with a gun. If you want a gun, move to a state that isn't so gun-unfriendly. There's at least 40 of them.
Here in Arizona, you can buy all the guns you want with no fingerprints, just the regular Federal instant-check form.
However, if you want a concealed-carry license, you need fingerprints for that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This has got to be a joke
Homeland security does love a good laugh.
Actually, this is a devious plot on their part.
1. Introduce ridiculously intrusive (yet this side of believable) plan which will do nothing but annoy people, as a pilot program
2. Wait until enough people are annoyed at it or some one in government starts talking about cutting spending on security and doesn't immediately get thrown out of office by voters
3. Announce you've decided not to do it based on feedback/because you don't have enough money to keep america safe
4