sime303

My issue with this is I have already given my fingerprints to obtain PR status (this was pre 9/11) isn't it just a waste of money taking them again? I think this is the main bitch for most current PR's.

hobbes79

Dang it. I actually went to bed last night think, "crap, I think I put 2005 and not 1995". How lame am I...

Brit3964

This morning I was talking to a work colleague whose German. She's a long time PR here and recently renewed her German passport. It seems Big Brother has begun in Germany. All German citizens are now required to provide fingerprints for passport issue and renewal:

"The German foreign missions in the United States issue passports to German citizens residing there ("European passports"). For children under the age of 12 with German citizenship, a child’s passport may also be issued instead of a regular passport.

A new passport law has been in effect since Nov. 1, 2007. Under this new law, fingerprints also must be stored on a chip contained in German passports. This affects all passport applicants six years and older.

It is therefore absolutely necessary that you personally go to the foreign mission responsible for your consular district to apply for the passport. Passport applications received by mail can no longer be processed"

http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/u..._Passport.html

Weather they are checking against a database on entry to Germany I don't know. What would be the point in collecting the information if you're not gonna verify it?

hobbes79

That's why I often bring up McVeigh. The justification for all this increased scrutiny of foreigners is largely down to 9/11.

So why weren't all white American males finger printed and evaluated after 1995? Because, presumably, an incident caused by someone with serious mental issues and misguided beliefs was considered a one off and shouldn't represent the mind set of all white American males. The one off tragedy wasn't considered enough to justify the stripping of civil liberties and a "presumed guilty until proven innocent" approach for massive portions of the population.

I never met the individuals who caused the 9/11 tragedy, but one would have to assume they also had some sort of mental issue or, at the very least, misguided beliefs. And thankfully (touching every piece of wood in sight) has represented a one off tragedy.

And yet, for reasons that border upon xenophobic, history has not repeated itself.

I choose to live here and will continue to abide by US laws as they pertain to GC holders. But I will also choose to do everything in my power to apply for USC when I'm eligible to at least stem the madness slightly.

TimFountain

Agreed and not only fingerprinted but FBI checked, Interpol checked, Police checked in your local country and photographed. i.e PR's are the most checked and verified group of travelers and much less of a threat than citizens, who have had no such checks. As a previous posted pointed out, it should be the travelling US citizen majority who should be the subject of this kind of scrutiny. Of course if that ever happened, people might wake up and realize what it truly happening....
My point is that this measure isn't going to achieve anything and is a lame gesture from an outgoing government who instigated the whole DHS ball of wax to address a fictitious, undefined threat after 9/11. I really wish this country, who I have made my home in and will become a citizen of next year, would realize just how many freedoms are being chipped away at by unelected morons in the DHS and other quango departments.

TimFountain

For a moment there I thought you were talking about GWB and his adventure in Iraq searching for WMD's. There are so many parallels in the above statement, it is scary!

Brit3964

Not to forget the TSA for those of us in the aviation world. However, USC's are also required to have fingerprints taken pre-employment as well.

nettlebed

Agree. For a country founded on freedoms and liberty, the majority of people in the US seem more than happy to see their freedoms eroded.

Where is a Juvenal when we need one?

But then again, Juvenal didn't make any difference: he just pointed the situation out...

Steerpike

Couldn't agree more with you there!

I agree. And for a party that claims to be for smaller government, and less government intrusion, it's the Republicans that seem hell bent on eroding these freedoms. I hope that Obama and team will back off some of these measures.

What TimFountain raises above is something that seems to get little discussion in this subject area. The govt. of GWB seems to think it operates in a vacuum, in a world without consequence. They are using torture on our 'enemies', and they are incarcerating people in Guantanamo without normal due process. They invaded Iraq on a pretense, and they give almost unconditional support to Israel no matter what they do. Somewhere along the line, someone needs to connect the big, bright dots that say, pissing off an entire generation, an entire region, an entire ethnic group leads to hatred of the US and inspires the very acts that led to 9/11. I've asked some of you who complain about the erosion of rights in this country whether it's ok to invade Iran in a preemptive manner, and I got a reply that suggests it is ok. If the US were to operate as a more 'cooperative' member of the world community, we may be less of a target.

chartreuse

You see, Steerpike, while I agree with you on the fundementals, I do have a problem with the political spin that you insist on putting on things.

The facts are, Clinton started everything that GW finished, and there's no place for partisan politics in this debate. Introducing it just debases our argument. But then, and I don't mean to be contentious, your agruments re gun control do tend to suggest that, at heart, you're sympathetic to the idea of big government intruding into the minutae of our lives.

I believe in freedom. You appear to fly it as a flag of convenience.

Steerpike

I think the Republicans - who are strong on gun rights - fly 'freedom' as a flag of convenience; it's ok for them to tout freedom when it comes to gun rights, and big-business getting a break from regulation, but when it comes to security, torture, wiretaps, etc they conveniently relegate it to the back seat; and when dealing with a woman's right to choose ... or the rights of everyone to a basic education ...

I would say I'm in favor of freedom in general. But yes, I'm opposed to gun "rights", and would like to see the second amendment re-interpreted; as it probably will be at some point. That particular 'freedom' is an anachronistic bit of history that is somewhat unique to this country - but let's not divert this interesting thread on that topic

chartreuse

Fair enough, and I do appreciate your support on other threads. But I always thought that the point of freedom was that you didn't get to pick just the bits you like. Freedom extends from the freedom to call no man master, to the freedom to starve to death in the gutter. It's an all or nothing deal.

Must go and give the kitten some medicines now

Steerpike

What bothers me is not that people 'care' about these freedoms, it's the relative priority that is implied. To me, being fingerprinted or not is a detail, a minor inconvenience. The lack of access to basic, affordable healthcare is something real, and affects a huge percentage of the population (including me if I lose my group coverage due to unemployment!). One can have an interesting debate about whether such access to healthcare is a 'right' or not; I happen to believe it should be a right. Once we have basic healthcare for all, and basic education for all, then I might start losing sleep over being fingerprinted.

chartreuse

Ah, okay, we've been at cross purposes. I see now - I want freedom, you want mommy.

Merry Christmas anyway

karenina

according to the Department of Homeland Security(DHS),
the reason for fingerprinting GC holders is very simple. They
want to verify that you are indeed the person on the GC.

I have no problems with that. (as long as the fingerprint
isn't used for any other reason... and the databas is kept
secure)

However, it's also possible that someone to present a
false US passport.