Tracym

Interesting point, I don't know. I had just noted what Mr. F said - he's usually correct about things

I'm trying to decide if I would mind having my fingerprint taken for a passport. Kinda yes... kinda not... not sure really. Heck, they have my photograph, so why is a fingerprint that much worse? I guess if I commit a crime or something... or was at a crime scene. I think fingerprinting is associated in our minds with being arrested - since that's generally the only time it'd be done. I can't decide if I think it's really bad... or just creepy.

Paul S

cor, I'd love to even be one of those (although they are happy to tax me as one), rather than be stuck on this stupid working visa with its lovely retrogression that goes with it for the GC

Steerpike

Well, they took a full set of mine for citizenship purposes. Seems logical to me that they would want to do likewise for passport app. purposes; otherwise, how do they 'secure' the passport? Anyway - I have bigger things to worry about!

nettlebed

I'm with Octang on this one, although I may have missed where he said his concerns were government surveillance. I think that principle, pure and simple, that you should not be subject to any form of oversight or examination by anybody for anything without probable cause, is good enough. The "if you've done nothing wrong..." crap is always trotted out when somebody is trying to steal your liberty, always. And the people who want to steal it, being government, religion, anybody should not be trusted to keep you safe. The mere fact that they are making the attempt means that their interests are opposed to yours, and that they should be resisted. Me too...

Brit3964

If you ever watch or read about living in occupied Europe during WW2, showing your papers was a daily occurrence that many, if not all (non-German) citizens disliked. Why? Because it goes to the heart of the matter - assuming your guilty of something without having any evidence of a crime. Left unchecked the "if you've done nothing wrong..." crowd will likely allow it to happen by default. Of course, only another 9/11 style attack would likely cause USC's to be fingerprinted for passport issue and entry.

Last time I checked, the USA presumes you innocent until proven guilty.

nettlebed

Or until they can torture a confession out of you. But that, I suppose, is tantamount to being guilty...

Bluegrass Lass

And last time I checked, a USC cannot be denied a passport, unless they've broken the law or not paid child support. And we definitely cannot be denied entry to the US. It's a right. The whole concept of fingerprints really pisses me off.

How does one fight the whole 'if you have nothing to hide' argument? My mother is one of those morons who would give up rights, if it would 'protect us from those terrorists,' and I've never really been able to come up with a retort when she throws up the 'nothing to hide' reasoning. I'd like to be able to come back with something good to toss in her face.

nettlebed

It's private, it's my business and I choose not to share it.

The Soviets and Nazis were all for intrusion into private affairs.

The US was founded on principles of liberty.

hobbes79

It's a slippery slope argument (which are never my favorite) but I just tend to point out, "well, where do you draw the line?".

How about the contents of every PC be accessed by the government to check for child porn? No matter that they get to see photos of every facet of your life, right...

How about being pulled over every week to check your license and registration is up to date?

How about being stopped in the street at random for no reason and being searched for concealed weapons?

How about being questioned on whether you've received or given oral sex, and asked you to explain the location and date of the act?

JCraigFong:

The Board of Immigration Appeals found in 1977, in Matter of Leyva, 16 I&N Dec. 188 (BIA, 1977), that oral sex was a crime involving moral turpidude. This presupposes that oral sex was a crime at all in the jurisdiction involved. Please note that many states in the Bible Belt of the USA at one time criminalized oral sex, even as between married heterosexual couples.

Thus, if you are one who regularly partakes of this practice, and the jurisdiction in which you do it does NOT consider it to be a crime, then you have NOT committed a CIMT, nor even -- if you are prone to discussing your bedtime practices -- that you have admitted to the elements of the offense, because in YOUR jurisdiction, such activity is NOT a crime.

Everyone has a line! And some consider it to be fingerprints...

Tracym

I'd agree with Hobbes, where do you draw the line. And I don't know.

I would be vastly horrified and offended to have my fingerprints, passport, or anything else just checked on a routine basis. So there I'd agree.

However - in order to leave the country and be allowed back in - I need to give them my photo, and show a passport. Would fingerprints be that much different? I still can't decide.

I do understand how it would bother quite a few people though.

fatbrit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090802623.html

"The State Department is denying passports to people born in southern Texas near the border with Mexico if they were delivered by midwives, citing a history of birth certificate forgeries there for Mexican-born children dating to the 1960s, according to U.S. officials."

nettlebed

But is that a case of verification of citizenship, rather than denying passports to genuine USCs?

Sounds like RFEs are being issued:

I'm not commenting on the merits or otherwise of the case, just pointing out that it looks as though there is some procedure for handling this. I'm not saying it's a good procedure, or it's working, either, since it is State doing it...

fatbrit

The State Department rejected his birth certificate, requiring him to provide other proof. Hernandez submitted his baptismal certificate, state immunization records, public school records, affidavits from his mother and another woman who had witnessed his birth, and his Army discharge certificate.

But in a letter dated April 8, the department told Hernandez that he had "not fully complied with the request for additional information and/or documentation" and that his application was being "filed without further action."


RFE is sometimes just a denial!

nettlebed

True, this could just be an administrative denial.

It would be interesting to know what, if any, specific evidence was requested in the RFE, or indeed, if the State Department would categorically state what evidence they would deem sufficient.

In other words, how was it determined that he had "not fully complied" with the RFE.

fatbrit

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/immigrants/...dcomplaint.pdf