Spring Break
Heightened Security Deters Foreign Visits
Alex Sanders
Issue date: 4/7/08 Section: Commentary
America is gradually turning into an uninviting fortress fraught with heightened security and "keep out" signs.
This past week, customs laws for foreign airline passengers changed. Customs now requires 10 fingerprints rather than the previous two. The process is just as simple as before. If airline security scans the tavelers' fingerprints and finds that he is not, in fact, a terrorist or criminal, he is free to move on.
The problem with a heightened security system is that it seems unnecessary. Fingerprinting is a fine idea, but why do they need all 10 prints? Many people would not go as far as faking fingerprints on two out of 10 of their fingers to trick the Transportation Security Administration. It seems like the biometric fingerprint scan is doing far more to deter innocent people from visiting America than protecting America from terrorists. It is more often heard in the news that innocent people are turned away at airport checks than bomb-wielding terrorists are caught there.
Also, there is no explanation for switching to a more complex fingerprinting system. There was no heightened security alert, no recent news of bombings, at least in the United States and no probable cause to take every single fingerprint from a foreign traveler.
The principle of the system is flawed. Government collection of all of someone's fingerprints invades privacy. The government can already read your e-mail, listen to your phone conversations and look at your bank statements, all in the name of protecting America. While security is a great idea, this is getting excessive. If terrorists come to attack the U.S., they probably have not been fingerprinted for crime in the past. Terrorist attacks are not small acts, if a person or group is going to commit an act as serious and high-profile as that, they are going to do research and know that there is a fingerprint system.
The system may be beneficial for America by preventing drug dealers, illegal immigrants or fugitives from entering the country. But as national security goes, it will not protect us from people who can do severe damage to the U.S. Also, not everyone is subjected to the 10 fingerprint process. According to The New York Times, "officials said that the system would apply to the 80 percent of foreign nationals who are required to carry visas and are between the ages of 14 and 79. Diplomats and a few others are exempt." Aside from travelers with American passports, who else is exempt? And also, why are diplomats and politicians exempt from the system? Congress members, for example, don't all have clean records. There are drug, prostitution and crime records that are all in existence. That is simply an unjust system.
This past week, customs laws for foreign airline passengers changed. Customs now requires 10 fingerprints rather than the previous two. The process is just as simple as before. If airline security scans the tavelers' fingerprints and finds that he is not, in fact, a terrorist or criminal, he is free to move on.
The problem with a heightened security system is that it seems unnecessary. Fingerprinting is a fine idea, but why do they need all 10 prints? Many people would not go as far as faking fingerprints on two out of 10 of their fingers to trick the Transportation Security Administration. It seems like the biometric fingerprint scan is doing far more to deter innocent people from visiting America than protecting America from terrorists. It is more often heard in the news that innocent people are turned away at airport checks than bomb-wielding terrorists are caught there.
Also, there is no explanation for switching to a more complex fingerprinting system. There was no heightened security alert, no recent news of bombings, at least in the United States and no probable cause to take every single fingerprint from a foreign traveler.
The principle of the system is flawed. Government collection of all of someone's fingerprints invades privacy. The government can already read your e-mail, listen to your phone conversations and look at your bank statements, all in the name of protecting America. While security is a great idea, this is getting excessive. If terrorists come to attack the U.S., they probably have not been fingerprinted for crime in the past. Terrorist attacks are not small acts, if a person or group is going to commit an act as serious and high-profile as that, they are going to do research and know that there is a fingerprint system.
The system may be beneficial for America by preventing drug dealers, illegal immigrants or fugitives from entering the country. But as national security goes, it will not protect us from people who can do severe damage to the U.S. Also, not everyone is subjected to the 10 fingerprint process. According to The New York Times, "officials said that the system would apply to the 80 percent of foreign nationals who are required to carry visas and are between the ages of 14 and 79. Diplomats and a few others are exempt." Aside from travelers with American passports, who else is exempt? And also, why are diplomats and politicians exempt from the system? Congress members, for example, don't all have clean records. There are drug, prostitution and crime records that are all in existence. That is simply an unjust system.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
damon Joylever
posted 4/07/08 @ 12:53 PM EST
You do make some points to make, but you are missing the big picture. The fingerprints are just one of many things that customs perform on incoming guests. (Continued…)
Post a Comment