Here’s a story picked up by the San Francisco chronicle this morning. At first glance, it seemed a good idea, especially since it had apparently been law since 1952. However the singling out of people from the Middle East for enforcement now, doesn’t quite pass my smell test as effective law enforcement.
So here are my questions for debate. Does this qualify as Racial Profiling? In my opinion yes it does.
Would it be different if it were extended to all foreign visitors?
It seems rather silly to pretend that the English, German, French, and Japanese nationals coming to the United States pose the same potential risk as those from Saudi-Arabia or Pakistan. Why not put the focus on those coming from nations that breed terrorism?
The only problem there would be that there are many Muslim immigrants who have become European nationals, so Abdul the Terrorist from Bradford would get in w/o fingerprinting, whereas Abdul the Software Engineer from Cairo would not.
This is an excellent debate topic, because it brings the profiliing question out in sharp relief. It seems clear that profiling is generally repugnant, but that it can have potential value. This sort of profiling could be he beginning of a slippery slope.
I would favor this fingerprinting, because it’s not that big an infringement. It’s a pretty quick process. It doesn’t prevent anyone from visiting the US.
As gobear points out, it wouldn’t be perfect protection, but it ought to do some good.
Yes, it is profiling. Racial? I dunno, is there a Middle Eastern race? Effective? Please!
If the US had an efficient and effective way to gather this information and use it, it would still be harassment but at least the government could claim the information gathered is being used in some way. The government can’t even watch known terrorists on who they have actual and real information that said terrorist is planning an attack.
What do they plan to do with all those fingerprints? Especially the ones that belong to people who are here to do nothing more than live their lives? What criteria are they using to judge which nationals pose a threat? Last I heard Somalians, Cubans and some very right wing Americans also have a big grudge against the US-- amongst others.
Another question, isn’t the kind of information the US hopes to gather on these Middle Easterns the kind of information that is supposed to be gathered before a visa is issued?
If a fingerprint is needed before a visa is issued, then get a fingerprint-- from everyone who has a visa. And folks lets remember, not all terrorists are Middle Eastern.
I’m back guys, I really hate to leave a debate unatttended, but I was in a meeting. (the nerve of thse people, actually expecting me to work for my pay :D).
My feelings is that this seems like another feel good measure. “Hey look we’re doing something” I can’t think of a way in which they might be useful, other than checking for criminal records, which to me is something we should already be doing. Anybody knowone way or the other?
As gobear and biggirl points out, this would seem to ignore a whole lot of folks, who also might be interested in an attack. However, I think it would make some sense that if we’re going to do this at all, then do it to everyone. Then it would at least pass the smell test, and wouldn’t allow the work arounds shown by gobear and biggirl.
Do foreigners planning on visiting the USA (reasons undefined) possess the same rights, privileges and protections as citizens and legal residents of the USA? While attempting to enter the country? After arriving?
Should they?
Is there a point where the protection of American society and its citizens is paramount with respect to foreigners who may be here to commit terrorism against our society?
Is there ever a point where idealistic goals of equality, objectivity and fairness within a society fall flat on their collective asses when there are individuals (groups? cults? organizations? yadda, yadda) who/which do not share the same belief structure?
Is it really practical to stop/fingerprint masses of foreign visitors to this country as they attempt to enter the country? Have you ever passed through a US Customs Hall when at least another dozen jet aircraft all have arrived with an hour of your arrival? Has anyone thought of processing thousands of foreign visitors at major entry points in a slow, tedious and concentration-intensive exercise as fingerprinting?
Notwithstanding the debate about profiling, but why wait to photograph/fingerprint foreigners after they arrive? Doesn’t it make more practical sense to have this done at the point of departure (while obtaining a visa) instead of upon arrival?
Who’s going to pay for all of this? How many Customs agents will we need just at major arrival points? When will this be implemented? Now? Next month? Six months to a year down the road after the government has advertised, interviewed, investigated, hired and trained all these people?
Will there ever be a point when the American People begin to realize Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft, et.al., have their own (hidden?) agenda which does not jive with the US Constitution and American society?
Of course, the old point that it is not Laplander reindeer herders threatening us, but rather, Middle Eastern men, that makes moot the ‘racial profiling’ argument.
Of course it is ‘profiling’, and of course, we would morons to not require it.
No. Ottto, it’s not “Middle Eastern men” who are threatening you. It’s persons, who may be male or female, whose beliefs, not their ethnicity, drive them to attack you. We know that not all al-Qaeda operatives are Middle Eastern men; we already have clear proof of this. Conversely we know that not all Middle Eastern men are al-Qaeda operatives or sympathisers.
Identifying Middle Eastern men is much easier than identifying terrorists, but that doesn’t make it effective at preventing terrorism. I cannot but suspect that a government which adopts measures like this does so because it is unable to think of any tactics that might actually be effective, and it wants to be seen to be doing something, however pointless, rather than nothing.
Or maybe we should profile all former members of the Armed Services, cause a couple of guys in the army blew up a building.
Or maybe we should profile all former railroad employees, cause a couple of them derailed a train in Arizona.
Maybe we should profile all Christians because they have this tendency to get together and blow up abortion clinics or kill doctors who perform abortions.
Let’s just go ahead and profile males, since they commit the majority of crimes.
If we are going to fingerprint visitors to this nation we ought to do it without singling out any regios or ethnicity. What we should do (if we do it at all) is simply have a policy of fingerprinting all visitors from countries that do not have the “trusted port” status. Those who have traveled internationally know what I mean by this.
I don’t see a problem with all persons coming into the US being fingerprinted, period, except for the huge hassle that it would make which would require hiring yet more customs and INS agents to harrass more innocent people to catch twenty to fifty people.
Maybe.
Oh, I guess that means I do have a problem with it after all.
Most recent terrorism in the Middle East has been suicide bombing, and the men who flew the airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon weren’t really hoping to survive it. So somehow I don’t think fingerprinting them will make a shred of difference. What is this supposed to acheive, other than giving the politicians a get-out from doing something genuinely effective?
Plus, nobody’s mentioned that fingerprinting is NOT an exact science. Comparisons used in court are based on a scale, and the required standards of similarity are scarily low. That’s for clear fingerprints, which are not as easy to obtain as you might think, especially when gunpowder residue is involved.
There’s also the question of whether this would actually catch any terrorists, as well. I mean, AFAIK it’s not like when someone gives their prints in the Customs line, a super-computer immediately check a database full of fingerprints of all known terrorists in the world, makes a match in under three seconds, starts flashing red lights and blaring horns, and a squad of crack commandos subdue the would-be terrorist before he can even put down his in-flight ham sandwich…?
excellent point gobear, and to point out to others who haven’t figured it all out - screen for country of origin? no problem, they’ve re-established residency etc/ in another country. Name? wasn’t the shoe bomber Richard Reid? religion? how is that even feasible? it’s not a piece of data that is gathered for any passport. and, how in the world would you prove it anyhow? What would stop an AQ terrorist from swearing to the passport person “oh yea, I"m catholic” ?
To add to BigGirls’ excellent point (gee, they had certain names to look for and didn’t, but now we’re supposed to believe that having a fingerprint is going to be helpful), what exactly is the purpose for the fingerprint at all?
I understand the issue RE: criminals in the US. Get their fingerprints upon booking, you can A) scan to see if they’re who they say they are and B) have them on file should you have a crime w/fingerprint evidence and can then match 'em up, but:
how much ‘fingerprint evidence’ is being processed for current (even just AQ related) terrorist attacks? post bombing evidence doesn’t strike me as the kind that yeild that sort of info,
and, of course, if we’re focusing on AQ again, these are folks who had the time, patience, money, drive, etc to hatch a plot that involved purchasing long involved training for 20 guys as one piece. Fingerprints are supposed to be an answer?
we already require that persons entering this country provide positive proof of ID, and as was noted, many of those responsible for 9/11 didn’t even attempt to hide that.
nope, I see this as a ‘see, we’re doing something’ measure.
This is a key point, if correct, since the idea AFAIK is to identify people this way. I believe a fingerprint can be characterized as finite list of numbers, so any old computer should be big enough to store that data.
I have more doubt about the practicality of converting each set of fingerprints into its corresponding number series. Is there a machine that does this? If not, would INS plan to make each entrant wait until a human has evaluated the fingerprints and done the computer comparison? How long does this take? How accurate is it?
If either of these is the plan, then I think taking fingerprints makes all the sense in the world. Otherwise, rjung may be correct.
BTW if the rule is to fingerprint visitors from certain countries, then it’s not any kind of profiling at all. A French Arab wouldn’t be finger-printed; a Caucasian Saudi would be.