"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 have

"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.