A thread about Brazil fingerprinting US citizens

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Okiedokie. Sorry to add to the Bushbashing threads but I'm surprised that this hasn't been broached yet.

The facts, in a nutshell: on arrival in the US, from January the 1st the citizens of all countries not participating in the Visa Waiver scheme (EU countries, basically, and Canada) now have to have their photographs and their fingerprints taken when they present their passports.

This has proved unpopular with the governments of many other countries, particularly South American states. Brazil has responded by fingerprinting and photographing US citizens (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1019249.htm), which has led to nine-hour queues for US citizens arriving there. The US has protested.

Is Brazil right to do this? Is America right to do what it's done? Are Americans on this board alright with the image that this policy might present of their country abroad?

[Anders]

USA has the right to do whatever it wants. And if Brazil thinks something is bad i don´t see why they start doing it themselves.

Another issue is that this is distancing US even more from the open society idea that is the essense of how the west percieve itself. To ensure the freedom of the people we have to limit their freedom and all that...

US should strive towards a condition where ordinary people could have lunch at the lawn in front of the white house.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Okiedokie. Sorry to add to the Bushbashing threads but I'm surprised that this hasn't been broached yet.

The facts, in a nutshell: on arrival in the US, from January the 1st the citizens of all countries not participating in the Visa Waiver scheme (EU countries, basically, and Canada) now have to have their photographs and their fingerprints taken when they present their passports.

This has proved unpopular with the governments of many other countries, particularly South American states. Brazil has responded by fingerprinting and photographing US citizens (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1019249.htm), which has led to nine-hour queues for US citizens arriving there. The US has protested.

Is Brazil right to do this? Is America right to do what it's done? Are Americans on this board alright with the image that this policy might present of their country abroad?

What brazil did was funny (not for the US passengers waiting 9 hours), but stupid.

US make this law (we can discuss of the utility of this law, but it's an another debate) in order to increase safety. EU and Canada are participating in the Visa Waiver scheme, brazil not. So it's not because of a specific nationality that someone has to comply with this directive, but because he lack the secured passport.
Brazil did the fingerprinting system, not for security reasons (they will throw away the fingerprint in a garbage), but for retaliations.

[bunge]

Brazil gets my thums up! I think the fingerprinting is a bureaucratic waste that doesn't in any way help us be safer. My hope is that Brazil retaliating in this way will help the U.S. realize how big of a waste it is.

[Fellowship]

Powerdoc, bunge wait wait.... could you step over here behind this line and smile... wait almost done...

here please put your thumb here please...



OK... now we got that out of the way Post Away! :lol:

Hassan? Anders? where did you guys go?? :???:


Fellowship ;) ;)

[Scott]

It's their contry. They have a right to know who's coming and going.

[Anders]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook


Hassan? Anders? where did you guys go?? :???:


Fellowship ;) ;)

Well since we are friendly terrorists from friendly countries we don´t have to stand in line. We can get in and do our deeds with a waiting time of less than five minutes (or we get a free cheese burger).

[Blue Shift]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Okiedokie. Sorry to add to the Bushbashing threads
.
.



:err: :lol: :no:

[Carol A]

I think fingerprinting and photographing are great ideas. After 9/11, we need to know who's in our country. Anyone who doesn't like it - tough! We are in a war, not a tea party. Things are different during war (big surprise!).

If Brazil wants to retaliate, fine. It just shows how juvenile the leaders are and what big chips they have on their shoulders. No problem. When they have 3,000 people murdered and buildings incinerated, maybe they will understand the concerns of the US.

Those Americans flying to Brazil are either business people who 'would' have invested money there, or tourists who will probably never return, after being made to wait nine hours for a childish show of pique. Brazil has every right to do what they want. If that's the kind of mentality they want to show to the world, fine. Fingerprinting and photographing Americans is fine. No one would object to that. But making them wait nine hours is childish.

In the US, it will be even better when the "exit" feature is added in, so that it will be easy to see who has over-stayed their visas. I'm all for it.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Carol A
I think fingerprinting and photographing are great ideas.

Why? No rhetoric please, just ideas.

[Blue Shift]

Don't mind him. He's got a reading comprehension problem.

[thegelding]

actually it might be a good idea everywhere....terrorism is a fairly small problem...nasty but rare...but rape and murder and theft are all very common...so brazil may well catch some americans who go to their country and commit crimes...

no biggie...we do it, they do it...welcome to the future

now bend over as we take a .......

g

[Carol A]

Originally posted by thegelding
actually it might be a good idea everywhere....terrorism is a fairly small problem...nasty but rare...but rape and murder and theft are all very common...so brazil may well catch some americans who go to their country and commit crimes...

no biggie...we do it, they do it...welcome to the future

now bend over as we take a .......

g
Hi Gelding - I have nothing to hide, so this stuff doesn't bother me during a time of war.

To renew my teaching certificate in my state, I (and everyone else) had to be fingerprinted and subjected to an FBI background check. Apparently I'm "good to go!" heh heh.

I have an FBI clearance card somewhere. I never can seem to find the damn thing...mainly because I don't see a need to carry it in my wallet, so it is floating around the house somewhere.

I am a registered Democrat, but I fully support any measures in the war on terror. I wanna catch these sucka's once and for all.

I just cannot get over that these terrorists and their supporters are spending all the time and money they have over the last decade, plotting to destroy the US, when all that time, money and effort could have gone into improving the lives of the ME masses. They (terrorists and their supporters) truly all belong in a psycho ward. I can hardly wait until we nail down some really good alternative energy sources. We would have already had them by now; but I feel sure the oil companies have been buying up the patents of any promising energy technologies for the last two or three decades, to put them on a shelf to moulder away, so they could still rake in their oil profits. Can't wait to get every last American out of Saudi, and to be able to tell the Saudis to take their oil and shove it. See how they like losing their biggest market. What idiots.

[Scott]

Originally posted by bunge
Why? No rhetoric please, just ideas.

She did say why. Didn't you bother to read the rest of the post?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
She did say why. Didn't you bother to read the rest of the post?

No, s/he said 'tough!', but that's not very informative. 'We need to know who's in our country?' As if anyone who doesn't want to be tracked is going to arrive in a way that gets them fingerprinted?

Without rhetoric, how does fingerprinting help? It doesn't.

[Anders]

Originally posted by bunge
Without rhetoric, how does fingerprinting help? It doesn't.

So only if the border police is giving you a patriotic speech while taking your prints is there an idea to it?

[Blue Shift]

Originally posted by bunge
No, s/he said 'tough!', but that's not very informative. 'We need to know who's in our country?' As if anyone who doesn't want to be tracked is going to arrive in a way that gets them fingerprinted?

Without rhetoric, how does fingerprinting help? It doesn't.


ok.

I made it really simple for you: Papers can be easily forged by criminals for a false alias. Fingerprints are unique. So not so easy to acquire a false alias.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Blue Shift
ok.

I made it really simple for you: Papers can be easily forged by criminals for a false alias. Fingerprints are unique. So not so easy to acquire a false alias.

What prints were left on the planes that crashed into the Pentagon?

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
Brazil gets my thums up! I think the fingerprinting is a bureaucratic waste that doesn't in any way help us be safer. My hope is that Brazil retaliating in this way will help the U.S. realize how big of a waste it is.
I personally have my doubts as to the effectiveness of finger printing visiters. However, done correctly it does that the potential to assist law enforcement or immigration agencies track leads where visiters are involved. To write it off outright as absolutaly useless is a bit rash. Should every security measure taken have to be able to show that it would have prevented 9/11 in order to be accepted? Of course not. Ideas have to be tried, steps have to be taken.

As far a Brazil's actions, they are simply showing how immature their leaders are. They don't like that their nationals are being subjected to finger printing in the US, so they immplement a measure that can and will only piss off American visiters and investers. Great plan.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
I personally have my doubts as to the effectiveness of finger printing visiters. However, done correctly it does that the potential to assist law enforcement or immigration agencies track leads where visiters are involved. To write it off outright as absolutaly useless is a bit rash. Should every security measure taken have to be able to show that it would have prevented 9/11 in order to be accepted? Of course not. Ideas have to be tried, steps have to be taken.

Consider the ROI. Nearly zero I would imagine.

[Carol A]

Originally posted by bunge
What prints were left on the planes that crashed into the Pentagon?
The thing is, once we get their (terrorists and sleeper cell members) fingerprints, they'll be able to use any fake identities and passports they want, and it won't matter; because a "hit" will come up on the computer as soon as their finger touches the scanner.

IIRC, foreign students will now be tracked in a similar manner as visa holders. Also, iirc, the universities are now required to keep track of foreign student enrollment and attendance in classes, so they can't melt away into the general population with no one being the wiser.

We will continue to tie up loose ends, and eventually it will pay off. We may never even know the events and actions that have been circumvented. One thing is for sure: doing 'nothing' is NOT one of the options.

[Blue Shift]

Originally posted by bunge
What prints were left on the planes that crashed into the Pentagon?

You do know that some of those criminals were illegals? Had they been quickly tracked by their prints as such.. :grumble:

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by bunge
Consider the ROI. Nearly zero I would imagine.
Hard to consider the ROI with no real numbers yet to base the judgement on. All we know for sure about the program and it's potential success/failure: finger printing is a long proven and successful method for matching people; criminals are entering the US without any real method for tracking them; the US needs a way to track/follow up visiters to the country; especially those with a habit of vanishing into the populace.

If even one terrorist is captured or even prevented from entering the US and lives saved, then the ROI becomes a pretty good ratio, unless you want to start playing actuarial for the insurance companies and determine exactly how many lives should be sacrificed for the sake of maximising the ROI.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Tulkas
criminals are entering the US without any real method for tracking them; the US needs a way to track/follow up visiters to the country; especially those with a habit of vanishing into the populace.

If we knew they were criminals we would catch them in the first place. All I'm saying is this isn't a good deterrent for terrorism.

Don't look at the ROI in a bubble for just this program. Using your logic ANY method used would have to be supported because ultimately just about ANY method would catch someone. With the money and energy going into this program, there are better things the government could do. Compare the ROI on the dollars going into fingerprinting vs. those same dollars going into a more effective program. I think we'd find that there are better ways of dealing with terrorism.

[trick fall]

It's not the terrorists I worry about so much as an out of control government. Sure they might catch a few terrorists, but what about the people they'll label as terrorists just to disparage and harrass? If you look back at American history there's always been some kind of label that was used to brandish people and take away their rights. Anarchists - union activists - communists - the war on drugs - the war on terror..................

[Eugene]

Breaking News: Effective immediately, all foreign travellers entering the United States will be rocked in the butt by Randy "The Macho Man" Savage or a close approximation. Ooooooh yeaaaah!

[Immanuel Goldstein]

When it comes to people dedicated to spectacularly kill a large amount of people, and often themselves in the process, prevention is a more advised course of action that deterrence.

The United States obviously considers terrorism more of a threat than does Brazil, and so it attempts to prevent it with various methods, notably fingerprinting foreign visitors (I won't discuss fingerprinting's effectiveness as it is of no importance to the point I'm trying to make).
Some countries' passport holders may be spared such slight (but perhaps necessary) unpleasantness if they participate in an agreed arrangement (visa waiver scheme), others may not. That's legitimate.

If Brazil wished to spare the procedure for its passport holders, the constructive way would have been to try entering some kind of similar arrangement with the US. While Brazil's chosen course seems to be vindictive more than anything else, it's just as legitimate.

Perhaps Brazil considers acceptable the prospect of less visitors from the US as a result, but that is Brazil's prerogative.

[ColanderOfDeath]

Brazil is just being stupid. If they object that is all fine and good but retaliating is juvenile. If they were doing it for genuine reasons of concern I wouldn't even have a problem with that but it is obviously a retaliatory action.

As far as the US thing, it doesn't particularly bother me. Fingerprints and a picture aren't that big of a deal. You can make that choice if you want to come here. I've had to consent to the same hting to get jobs in public schools as others have as well.

I doubt this system will be very effective in catching terrorists although you'll catch the occasional person wanted for something else. First of all, they aren't even doing this at all ports of entry at least at this point, only at certain big ones. I assume that it will be expanded in the future but I don't know that they are gonna be covering every single official port of entry.

Even then, if a person is fingerprinted and photographed, that tells you information about them that might help you find them but this is a big country in which to hide even if someone is looking for you.

And even if you overstay your visa that doesn't necessarily mean that the FBI is going to be looking for you. Realistically they don't have hte resources to be doing that for everyone who overstays unless there is other intelligence indicating they should be doing so anyway.

Past that, getting past the border without being entered in the system ain't exactly hard either. Drug runners do it all the time and succeed, not always, but the vast majority of the time. Illegal aliens have gotten through by the millions. Just guessing off the top of my head on numbers I'd say that we've got probably about 4000 miles of border with Canada and 2000 miles with Mexico plus 8000 miles of coastline. Our borders tend to funnel everyone into a few places, Tijuana, El Paso, Vancouver, Detroit, etc but in between there are vast stretches of uninhabited land with limited border patrols. There are roads in from Canada that are ports of entry which are only manned from 9-5 and have traffic cones or gates as the sole barrier for someone crossing when they are closed. There are trails over public lands which can be crossed in a day or two. There are all sorts of way in without being checked in for someone who wants as much and chances are pretty good that they'll get in especially coming from Canada. Geography and budget constraints force that to be the case even with the help they can get now for technology.

[Moogs]

Until there is an international law that says states cannot do this sort of thing, then both the US and Brasil have the "right" to put this kind of practice into effect. The more relevant question is, what is the basis for determining which country's citizens belong on the "waive list". If "terrorist activity" or "likely terrorist hosts" in a given state is the measure, then I think just about every nation on earth should be waived other than Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Malaysia, Palestine and maybe Syria and Iran.

But even then, it's just as likely there are bombers lying in wait in Spain or France as there are in the above-mentioned countries. Why put them on the waive list, just because they're "European"?

I think the point is, the US is being stupid about how it's choosing the waive list.

[Blue Shift]

Originally posted by Moogs
Until there is an international law that says states cannot do this sort of thing, then both the US and Brasil have the "right" to put this kind of practice into effect. The more relevant question is, what is the basis for determining which country's citizens belong on the "waive list". If "terrorist activity" or "likely terrorist hosts" in a given state is the measure, then I think just about every nation on earth should be waived other than Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Malaysia, Palestine and maybe Syria and Iran.

But even then, it's just as likely there are bombers lying in wait in Spain or France as there are in the above-mentioned countries. Why put them on the waive list, just because they're "European"?

I think the point is, the US is being stupid about how it's choosing the waive list.


Not at all. Start with obvious candidates and work your way down from there. My personal feeling is that none should be excluded.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Not at all. Start with obvious candidates and work your way down from there. My personal feeling is that none should be excluded.
While arrangments, according to which relevent data (fingerprints, dental records, and whatnot) is being made available by the country of residence upon request, might be helpful, the “better cautious than exploded” approach does have a few advantages indeed.
[As is the case with the routine mandatory checking of all people entering places of commerce, entertainment, or central public transit stations, in areas which are particularly terror-prone.]

[Giaguara]

brazil is not discriminating ANZONE with their fingerprints policz.

thez reqire fingerprints from ANZONE, BRAYILIANS and NON-BRAYILIANS. period.



mz last identitz card is brayilian, and it has fingerprints.
i hate both, fngerprinting AND id cards.


also portugal requires finger prints in the national id cards. no portuguese have protested. (and obviouslz no americans have NEVER needed to get an ID card or in brayil nor in portugal as this topic has not raised before).

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Carol A
I think fingerprinting and photographing are great ideas. After 9/11, we need to know who's in our country. Anyone who doesn't like it - tough!

finger prints do nothing, reallz. i have mz finger prints in mz brayilian ID card. ive been checked the photo a yillion times, but no one has ever checked mz finger prints .. whether thez correspond to mu fingers.


brayil and portugal have both used the figner prints on ALL id cards for a long time, from far before the 9/11 thing.


i personallz find it OK and NOT DISCRIMINATING ... BUT ONLZ when the finger prints are taken of EVERZONE. SO NO MATTER IF ZOU ARE FROM THE COUNTRZ OR A VISITOR / (IL)LEGAL ALIEN, everzone.

otherwise .. discriminating.


ps- sorrz for all the tzpos todaz - im on a german kezboard. :(

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Giaguara
brazil is not discriminating ANZONE with their fingerprints policz.

thez reqire fingerprints from ANZONE, BRAYILIANS and NON-BRAYILIANS. period.



mz last identitz card is brayilian, and it has fingerprints.
i hate both, fngerprinting AND id cards.


also portugal requires finger prints in the national id cards. no portuguese have protested. (and obviouslz no americans have NEVER needed to get an ID card or in brayil nor in portugal as this topic has not raised before). My parents a while back had to get Portuguese ID cards to open up a bank account in Lisbon. They have double citizenship but still had to get these cards.

[Giaguara]

outisider, even if they were just portugues / just americans, they would still have needed to get those cards.

i dont have any ID card in europe. i don't want one. i use my drivers licence or passport, only those. but in brazil that wasnt enough. i was forced to get a brazilian id card. :mad: