4 ms·
"Everyone knows someone who has a friend who knew the guy who tried to dry his poodle in the microwave." I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not talking about some
by sho 18y ago
"Everyone knows someone who has a friend who knew the guy who tried to dry his poodle in the microwave."
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not talking about some urban legend that gets passed through 10 generations of "friends of friends", I'm saying that many people have had bad experiences with US Immigration, and word gets around. I personally know someone who now enters the US by land via Canada because of his repeated horrendous experiences at the air border.
"I'm not saying that Immigration and/or Homeland Security is great, but the rumor-mongering is unjustified."
Rumours? It goes a bit beyond rumours, don't you think? It's large-scale and well-documented. Personal anecdotes alone do not make something true, but that's not the case here. The personal anecdotes just add a more of a "this could happen to me" dimension to otherwise abstract reports of it happening to someone else.
"And you know this because...."
Because .. it's self evident and obviously true? What are you trying to say - that the hostile suspicion of foreigners at the US Border is not policy?
"I know a Stanford CS PhD student who was put through hell by the Australian equivalent of US Immigration/Homeland Security"
I'm not trying to say we're much better, although at least we don't fingerprint. I have many (in some cases personally witnessed/experienced) grievances against the Australian system.
No need to turn this into a "my country is better than yours" pissing match, I have a real fondness for America and wouldn't even bother having a strong opinion if I didn't care ; )
"Nevertheless, I don't get hysterical about it."
Sigh. I hope I didn't come across as hysterical. I put a bit of emotion into my writing in an attempt to get the point across that it's important to me, not as a sign that I have taken leave of my senses.
"I don't know how things are in Australia, but we can't identify criminals and the like without actually checking."
Huh? We're talking about the US Border, specifically about foreigners trying to visit, many who have never been there before. Are you suggesting that there is a huge list of outstanding arrest warrants for foreign criminals whose faces and fingerprints are on record, and this system is an attempt to catch them? Or that US Border agents are cooperating with overseas police forces to catch escaping criminals or something?
Of course not. I actually don't know why they do it. The whole thing is post-9/11 so I suppose it's part of the "war on terror", but surely the number of "terrorists" who are on the run but whose fingerprints have somehow been recorded is vanishingly small.
Anyway, I hope that with the new administration in charge and the memory of 9/11 receding, this horrible system will be turned off.
- anamax 18y ago>> "And you know this because...." > Because .. it's self evident and obviously true? What are you trying to say - that the hostile suspicion of foreigners at the US Border is not policy? As I suspected, you're guessing - it's sort of like fundamental attribution error. > Huh? We're talking about the US Border, specifically about foreigners trying to visit, many who have never been there before. How does immigration/homeland security know that someone has never been to the US before? (Hint: their passport isn't reliable information.) And, if the US isn't trading fingerprint info with everyone it can, it isn't doing its job. BTW - The US does collect fingerprints overseas in certain countries. However, thanks to discrimination laws, it can't just check fingerprints of folks who look like they might be from those places. If you argued that we're practicing "security theater", not security, you wouldn't get an argument from me. > Anyway, I hope that with the new administration in charge and the memory of 9/11 receding, this horrible system will be turned off. Be ready to be disappointed.
- sho 18y ago"As I suspected, you're guessing - it's sort of like fundamental attribution error." I don't think so. It's merely the most likely explanation. I note you haven't advanced any competing theories. However, not like I have any hard evidence, so consider the point retracted if it bothers you. (various points about fingerprint collection) Well, everything you say is true, as far as it goes. My point is not that fingerprint collection is utterly useless and no case whatsoever can be made for its enactment. What I am trying to say is that it is an extreme tactic with high costs, not least of which that it turns people off visiting the US at all, and its benefits are nebulous and require a lot of unlikely "what-if" scenarios to pay off at all. Meanwhile, the data collected is, IMO, very dangerous. Ah, I see you've heard of the term "security theatre". Yes, that's exactly what it is, and a very damaging and costly act it is too. "Be ready to be disappointed." I am, but I don't think it's impossible that the draconian entry procedures will be dropped. They're really a product of paranoia and irrational fear; this dissipates in time. When the drumbeat of terrorism scaremongering has died down a bit, and the post-crisis economic reality has dawned on everyone, it might well occur to the leaders of the country that perhaps they can't afford to throw away tourist and business dollars on misguided security theatre any more. It might take a while, but economic pragmatism wins out every time.