>>The cost of freedom and security is not free, and sometimes we have to endure procedures that we normally would rather not participate in.<<

Perhaps it's worthwhile remembering the words of a former distinguished American, Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The point he was making is that if you give up liberty in the name of "preserving" it, you are defeating the very goal that you're setting out to achieve!

Regards,

Chris

Chris, what would you suggest that we do? Are we to allow evil people to flood unchecked into our country? The fact is, Ben Franklin couldn't have begun to imagine the world we live in now. They didn't have the capability of killing thousands of people in one blow. I don't think we are talking about a "little temporary safety" here, but a much larger picture.

I don't have the answers, Rarogirl. The only point I'm making is that if you allow your country to be changed into some sort of totalitarian "police state" where "big brother" watches your every move, analyzes your selection of library books for sinister intent, taps your telephones, reads your e-mail messages, photographs and fingerprints you every time you go out of your house, and imprisons you without charge, trial, or access to legal representation, then haven't you lost the battle for "freedom"?

I'm not saying that this is what the US is like at the moment - it clearly isn't - but from the point of view of an outsider, it appears as though that is the direction that you're moving in.

NONE of these measures would have affected the events of 11th September one jot. The people involved entered the country perfectly legally, they were not known criminals, and the items they took onto the planes were perfectly legimate at that time.

It is unclear that fingerprinting will achieve anything in the way of protecting the country against terrorism. It will probably catch a few wanted criminals, but "serious" terrorists don't enter countries illegally; they establish plausible "covers" and live open and normal lives until the times come for their "mission".

Regards,

Chris

Chris . . . I do understand what you are saying and I have certainly had misgivings at times about the direction we are heading. I don't want to end up in a totalitarian police state either. Like you, I don't know the answers. It is just a very difficult situation.

The direction we are heading away from, Chris, is "arms wide open, give away the country" to tougher border and immigration controls... the same controls that many other visa counries have done for decades. Those who find it objectionable need not visit. Those who must visit will comply with the law, just like they do in any other country, like it or not. Theoretical debates over "big brother" and the like doesn't cut it today's world of new homeland security needs. Since 1945 Big Brother has always been around and we still remain very free, very proud our successes, while continuing to enjoy our great American lifestyle in spite of "big brother" lurking in the minds of some.

<<Since 1945 Big Brother has always been around and we still remain very free,>>

The problem is that since 1945, technology has made it so much easier to pry and collect information (imagine if JE Hoover were in charge now). An example is the seemingly innocent EZ PASS. It can be used to track a user's movements. Many people now remove it from the dashboard and put it in an 'envelope' in the glove compartment.

Look at what happened with the Social Security number.It was supposed to be used ONLY for SS. Now, it seems, it has become a 'National Identity' number.

We hear, often on this board, "We must not let the terrorist win." If we let our fear and "sheep mentality" change the basic fiber, liberties and precepts of our country they (the terrorists) WILL HAVE WON by default. Once lost, they may never be found.

Having said that, I understand the finger printing requirement. Unfortunately, we are at a point that we just do not know who is in the country. I'm not a great fan of 'data bases,' but I don't regard it as any more intrusive that requiring a passport or a visa. As I understand the process, it only adds 28 seconds to the 'entry' process.

Bob

What is the point of fingerprinting some foreign visitors and not others? Anyone with half a will can exploit that glaring loophole. And sometimes the Bad Guys are American citizens operating from within our borders, anyway.
A few years ago, before I was a U.S. citizen,
I was returning to the U.S. from a visit to Puerto Rico. On our return into the U.S., no-one asked me for papers of any kind. I was allowed to board the plane without showing any residence documents. I could have been from anywhere on earth. Something tells me this is not the only hole that needs to be plugged.
Fingerprinting everyone doesn't begin to address the real problem.
Caitie

>>Theoretical debates over "big brother" and the like doesn't cut it today's world of new homeland security needs. Since 1945 Big Brother has always been around and we still remain very free, very proud our successes, while continuing to enjoy our great American lifestyle in spite of "big brother" lurking in the minds of some.<<

This debate is far from theoretical to a young man from my home town who, two years ago, went to visit his relatives in Pakistan.

Being a typical teenager, he thought it would be an adventure to travel home to England overland, so he got a bus from Pakistan to Turkey, not realising - having a typical teenager's ignorance of geography - that the bus would go through Afghanistan. In the middle of nowhere, the bus was surrounded by American soldiers, and he was dragged off the bus. A while later, he found himself a guest of the US government in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. His family didn't know what had happened to him, and nobody would tell him what he was supposed to have done. Nearly TWO YEARS later the US government finally admitted that he hadn't done anything wrong, and he got home to his family only a couple of weeks ago.

I suspect that he has found that "big brother" is rather more than a "theoretical debate".

Should your "great American lifestyle" and "freedom" really have to come at the price of denying basic human rights - eg the right to legal representation - to other people?

Regards,

Chris

Chris, this is not the venue to elaborate further on pursuing your concerns about "big brother". This topic was to inform about the new policy of pictures and finger printing requirements for entry to the USA. Is shall comment no further. Cheers!

Chris
I have been reading your posts regarding living in a 'Big Brother' state and find them very interesting since you had previously posted you had communist leanings. How much more of a 'Big Brother' state can that be? Perhaps other travelers on this board should be aware of the fact,that last summer, while visiting London I had my purse searched at the Savoy Hotel, Ritz Hotel, British Museum and the London Eye. In addition, at the London Eye everyone had the thrill of a metal detector wand passed over his or her entire body. No problem to me-from the United States-just grateful that the English were taking the precautions and I did not think of it as 'Big Brother' looking into my private possessions. Also Chris what about the street security cameras recently installed in some of the cities of Great Britain? Is that a concern to you? Not me!
Regards

Sophie

If I had to be printed, no worries. I have nothing to hide.

But I would have a lot to lose if I allowed my ego to get in the way of the adventure of travel. "There's more to see than can ever be seen...", as the poet sang.

If anyone would select that as a reason to not visit my extraordinary country...it's their loss.

This debate is far from theoretical to a young man from my home town who, two years ago, went to visit his relatives in Pakistan.


The debate you say Chris has another side to it. There were almost 3000 people, including many dear friends, who went to work that day and NEVER came home. They too were innocent people who lost their lives. If fingerprinting and/or picture taking is the price we have to pay, so be it.

Life has changed for all of us and it will never be the same. Prior to 9/11 did you ever see armed military in OUR airports? How about Police standing on corners carrying machine guns?

No, life has forever changed.
Bob

>>Prior to 9/11 did you ever see armed military in OUR airports? How about Police standing on corners carrying machine guns?<<

I have always seen armed people all over the US, Bob, and it scares the hell out of me. Armed police, armed private security guards, _everybody_ seems to carry guns! It seems a little academic that some people are now carrying machine guns rather than pistols.

As I said at the start of this debate, I respect the fact that every country has the right to impose whatever entry requirements it chooses, but I make the personal choice _not_ to subject myself to being fingerprinted by visiting your country.

I appreciate that you must have lost friends in the 11th September attacks, and I deeply sympathise with you. One of my closest friends, who joined the army when he left school, was killed by the IRA while he was walking down a street in Belfast.

Best wishes,

Chris

I thought this BB was for our experiences on various TT tours. Do believe this topic has gotten rather out of hand even tho I do agree with some of the replies.

Chris,

I would have to disagree with you. Prior to 9/11 the only people you saw at the airports JFK,LGA,Islip, and Newark were Police Officers carrying sidearms only. Since then the National Guard carrying M16's are stationed there. Also NYC Police Special Operations Officers are stationed there carrying UZI's, Tech 9 machine pistols, and M16's.

Also don't forget the US is not like the UK, all Police Officers here carry sidearms.