U.S. government plans to fingerprint cruisers at terminals

[luckycruzer]

get in w/o a passport, dosent it stand to reason, they will get in w/o finger prints also?..ie:over the wall, under the fence, inside a crate, or trunk of a car....just my thoughts:confused:

[NYCFOD]

Hi I'm a resident alien. Before I got my green card, I was here on an L-1 visa, before that I visited a number of times on the visa waiver program. My first visit was in 2002 and by that time, the customs and border people had already begun fingerprinting all arriving non-US citizens at international airports. This is merely an extension of this.

 

As an Australian, one thing that has always amazed me is how insecure US borders are, and how much of the administration of entry and exit is palmed off to travel companies. In most countries, on arrival at the border a government official examines your passport and visa (if one is required), asks a few questions and either lets you in or detains you for deportation - so far this is pretty much what happens here. However, when you leave most countries, you check in at the airport with the airline (or at the port with the shipping line, or the railway station) and then you have to present yourself to the border control people who scan your passport and note that you've left the country. Here in the US this last bit is left to the airlines, Amtrak, the cruise ship companies etc. who really don't care as much as customs and border patrol. This fingerprinting initiative is part of the US Dept of Homeland Security playing catch up.

 

I would also point out that as part of the green card process, and the NEXUS card process, I have had my finger prints taken and the US government has a perfect set, so I can't go breaking any laws unless I wear gloves. :D

 

In comparison, in Australia, the only people who are entitled to arrive without first telling the Australian government are Australian and New Zealand passport holders, everyone else needs a visa or Electronic Travel Authority. Your passport (including Australian and New Zealand passports) is scanned by Australian Customs when you arrive and when you depart. If you don't depart before your visa or ETA expires, they may start looking for you as an overstayer. If you leave late and ever want to visit again, you need to apply for a visa.

 

I haven't been to Australia in a couple of years, but they weren't fingerprinting people then.

[gtalum]

It's no wonder the US is slowly becoming a police state. People are just too happy to give up their rights in the name of a false sense of security.

[boundingmaynard]

Hope they print every foreigner...

 

 

Sorry... Every Country has the right to know who is entering and exiting their Country... one way or another. :)

 

 

Either way, the American taxpayer foots the bill. I don't know about you, but I get just a little bit tired of taking it in the shorts.:mad:

[Kurbanfan]

It's no wonder the US is slowly becoming a police state. People are just too happy to give up their rights in the name of a false sense of security.

 

What rights are they asking the U.S. citizens to give up:confused:

[boundingmaynard]

It's no wonder the US is slowly becoming a police state. People are just too happy to give up their rights in the name of a false sense of security.

 

Well said!!

[Lovely Cruise]

My thoughts exactly and certainly nothing to apologize for.

 

 

 

Seems to me it would only "bite them in the butt" as you say, if they were involved in some not so legal activity.

 

I'm sorry that has to be the stupidest reason for not taking them that I've ever heard and what would you have to "endure?" Besides it would only take an extra minute or two - being in the digial age and all that. Have to have mine taken every couple of years...no big deal.:rolleyes:[/quote

 

 

GEE WHIZ, I was JOKING.....!!!

[thistoo]

Disney World too, we had to get scanned last month when we went. It only took half a second though, so it wasn't holding the line up at all.

 

Maybe Walt bought better machines than Anheuser-Busch!

 

They were a nightmare in the beginning, but they've gotten a lot better since they've had some time to work out the kinks.

[NYCFOD]

Either way, the American taxpayer foots the bill. I don't know about you, but I get just a little bit tired of taking it in the shorts.:mad:

 

The US government, like every other government, levies port charges to pay for immigration services at ports of entry and exit. So the US taxpayer does pay, but the taxpayers concerned are those foreigners paying port taxes to the US government.

[BND]

As a Federal employee, I have been fingerprinted. Not really a big deal. There are banks that use fingerprints to id people and link them with their accounts. You're not giving up your rights or privacy by giving fingerprints, unless of course you're afraid of getting caught committing a crime and leaving fingerprints behind.:D

 

In fact, most people have been fingerprinted at one time or another in their lives. People fingerprint their children on a regular basis nowadays and all babies have their footprints taken at birth. No one whines about that.

[sassy0930]

I don't know why this is even up for conversation (well except for the australian who contributed. That makes sense)

 

but this is for NON-US CITIZENS. If you aren't a citizen you get fingerprinted. If you are don't worry. NONE OF OUR RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY!!!!!

 

now the fact that the GOv't is expecting the cruise and air industries to handle the costs of this is just insane! As if we're not being charged enough. Next we'll have a "fingerprint surcharge" hidden and added on at the end so they don't have to pay commission on it to TA's and so while we're shopping for a cruise vacation we see pretty little prices. AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!! Darn these stupid decisions.

[wayne_trisha]

I'm just curious what right is being taken away by fingerprinting someone.

[ezjack1825]

I'm just curious what right is being taken away by fingerprinting someone.

 

I was kinda wondering the same. I've had numerous background checks done on me for employment, membership to organizations, etc and several times that included fingerprints. I've got a concealed permit in FL and a Federal Firearms License since I collect WWII and prior rifles. The city, the state, and even the ATF have my prints. If I'm not doing anything illegal, I have nothing to worry about. In fact, since they already have my prints, they could clear me faster if there was ever any question.

 

Giving your fingerprints to law enforcement takes away nobody's rights - in fact, I gave them to ensure I do have my 2nd amendment rights. You don't have to remove a hand, no needles, no blood, no pain, no indecency, no scars, not a big deal.

[gtalum]

What rights are they asking the U.S. citizens to give up

 

 

Please point out the clause in the US Constitution that limits the rights defined within it to citizens.

[broberts]

Umm you never heard of phony passports;) There is no such thing as a phony fingerprint........

 

I sure hope you don't truly believe that. The new generation of passports are not that easy to forge and its made all that much harder by being electronically readable and thus verifiable.

 

Fingerprint readers have problems and I've heard that some types are relatively easy to fool. Not in the same class perhaps, but Myth Busters had an episode where they fooled several types of fingerprint readers with some ease.

[Kurbanfan]

It's no wonder the US is slowly becoming a police state. People are just too happy to give up their rights in the name of a false sense of security.

 

I asked you what rights are they asking the U.S. Citizens to give up....and you give me this below:confused: They are not asking the U.S. citizens to be fingerprinted so I have know idea what you are talking about.......

 

Please point out the clause in the US Constitution that limits the rights defined within it to citizens.

 

 

 

I sure hope you don't truly believe that. .

 

I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it.......

[JUST4FUN101]

More delays at the port, great!!

[gtalum]

I asked you what rights are they asking the U.S. Citizens to give up....and you give me this below:confused: They are not asking the U.S. citizens to be fingerprinted so I have know idea what you are talking about.......

 

Again, who said the rights established in the US Constitution are limited to citizens? Is it your claim then that immigrants and residents who are not citizens don't have any rights under the constitution? How can you possibly think that's a good idea? Forgetting all other problems with that philosophy, what would you do if a cop asked you to prove your citizenship on the spot?

 

For specifics, this clearly violates the 4th Amendment for people who are not citizens.

[Kurbanfan]

Again, who said the rights established in the US Constitution are limited to citizens? Is it your claim then that immigrants and residents who are not citizens don't have any rights under the constitution? How can you possibly think that's a good idea? Forgetting all other problems with that philosophy, what would you do if a cop asked you to prove your citizenship on the spot?

 

For specifics, this clearly violates the 4th Amendment for people who are not citizens.

 

Oh brother:rolleyes:

Yes I think it's a damn good idea.

[VentureMan_2000]

Again, who said the rights established in the US Constitution are limited to citizens?

 

 

 

You lost the argument... time to give it up. :rolleyes:

[gtalum]

You lost the argument... time to give it up.

 

 

Telling someone they've lost the debate is a pretty good sign that they haven't lost the debate. ;)

[gtalum]

Oh brother

Yes I think it's a damn good idea.

 

Supposing US Constitution protections apply only to citizens, how will you prove you are a citizen on the spot if you are detained for some reason?

[Kurbanfan]

Supposing US Constitution protections apply only to citizens, how will you prove you are a citizen on the spot if you are detained for some reason?

 

Since this issue is about entering and exiting out of the U.S. Port.......I would simply show them my passport;)

But somehow I have the feeling you are making this into an entirely other issue.....

[neverpar]

Since a foreigner can't come into or leave the US without a passport, why is a finger print necessary or a better form of identification????

 

Just seems like a silly waste of time to me, and it certainly isn't an expense that the cruise or air industry should have to incur.

 

 

hhmmmm let's see......passports can be counterfeit.......fingerprints can't..no one has the same fingerprints.....anyone can get a fake passport...

[nrdsb4]

Again, who said the rights established in the US Constitution are limited to citizens? Is it your claim then that immigrants and residents who are not citizens don't have any rights under the constitution? How can you possibly think that's a good idea? Forgetting all other problems with that philosophy, what would you do if a cop asked you to prove your citizenship on the spot?

 

For specifics, this clearly violates the 4th Amendment for people who are not citizens.

 

I'm no lawyer, much less an expert on constitutional law. But I googled "fingerprinting at borders violates the 4th amendment," and one of the first hits I got was:

 

The Second Circuit held that the law provides no remedy for these plaintiffs, not even expungement of their personal information from the database. Although the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, the Supreme Court has granted the Federal government broad authority to conduct routine searches at the border. The question is whether this search is "routine" (presumed legal) or sufficiently invasive to require a showing of "reasonable suspicion" before conducting the search. While there may have been a stigma associated with aspects of the search, overall the search was not materially different from other border searches, and pat-down searches and fingerprinting/photographing are not too invasive in this context. While the searches lasted from 4-6 hours, that is more like the (legal) one-hours delay than the (illegal) overnight delays.

 

The cumulative effect of the search procedures at the border also does not violate the Constitution. The Court reasoned:

 

 

And while we leave open the possibility that in some circumstances the cumulative effect of several routine search methods could render an overall search non-routine, we do not find that to be the case here. While plaintiffs were undoubtedly made uncomfortable and angry by the searches, and they may understandably have felt stigmatized, their personal privacy was not invaded in the same way as it would have been had they been subject to a body cavity or strip search, or involuntary x-ray. Because the decisive factor in the analysis is invasiveness of privacy – not overall inconvenience – we find that CBP’s searches of plaintiffs, considered in their entirety, were routine in the border context, albeit near the outer limits of what is permissible absent reasonable suspicion.

 

and blah blah blah.

 

This one little blurb tells me this issue is not so "clear" as you would have us believe.