Heightened Security Deters Foreign Visits

By: Alex Sanders

Posted: 4/7/08

America is gradually turning into an uninviting fortress fraught with heightened security and "keep out" signs.

This past week, customs laws for foreign airline passengers changed. Customs now requires 10 fingerprints rather than the previous two. The process is just as simple as before. If airline security scans the tavelers' fingerprints and finds that he is not, in fact, a terrorist or criminal, he is free to move on.

The problem with a heightened security system is that it seems unnecessary. Fingerprinting is a fine idea, but why do they need all 10 prints? Many people would not go as far as faking fingerprints on two out of 10 of their fingers to trick the Transportation Security Administration. It seems like the biometric fingerprint scan is doing far more to deter innocent people from visiting America than protecting America from terrorists. It is more often heard in the news that innocent people are turned away at airport checks than bomb-wielding terrorists are caught there.

Also, there is no explanation for switching to a more complex fingerprinting system. There was no heightened security alert, no recent news of bombings, at least in the United States and no probable cause to take every single fingerprint from a foreign traveler.

The principle of the system is flawed. Government collection of all of someone's fingerprints invades privacy. The government can already read your e-mail, listen to your phone conversations and look at your bank statements, all in the name of protecting America. While security is a great idea, this is getting excessive. If terrorists come to attack the U.S., they probably have not been fingerprinted for crime in the past. Terrorist attacks are not small acts, if a person or group is going to commit an act as serious and high-profile as that, they are going to do research and know that there is a fingerprint system.

The system may be beneficial for America by preventing drug dealers, illegal immigrants or fugitives from entering the country. But as national security goes, it will not protect us from people who can do severe damage to the U.S. Also, not everyone is subjected to the 10 fingerprint process. According to The New York Times, "officials said that the system would apply to the 80 percent of foreign nationals who are required to carry visas and are between the ages of 14 and 79. Diplomats and a few others are exempt." Aside from travelers with American passports, who else is exempt? And also, why are diplomats and politicians exempt from the system? Congress members, for example, don't all have clean records. There are drug, prostitution and crime records that are all in existence. That is simply an unjust system.

Recently, the British singer, Amy Winehouse, was denied access to the U.S. to attend the Grammy Awards. Initially, the TSA said it was because of her admitting to her use of illegal drugs, including in songs like "Rehab." However, The New York Times reports that recently, the heads of arts organization said that Winehouse, among other artists, was denied for another reason. "The real problem," they said, "is the time, money and complexity involved in getting visas for lower-profile artists, including dancers, singers, musicians and actors." This system is ridiculous. People should be fingerprinted when initially applying for visas. If the airline system discriminates, it is not nearly foolproof. For instance, the system only applies to people up to 79 years old. Osama Bin Laden is 51 years old and he is in hiding for leading people who commit heinous acts. On his 79th birthday, he will not simply stop and consider his feelings towards America, regret his actions, rethink the remainder of his life and apologize. Obviously, he isn't going to even attempt to go to America. He is so high-profile and would be taken into custody of the law immediately. But there may well be 80 year olds out in the world who are fit enough and hate America enough to commit equally criminal acts. Although it is unlikely, it is possible. That's what these systems are for after all. They could possibly catch terrorists or criminals, who aren't likely to travel via high security airports. So, the system catches people who are unlikely to be there, but it is still a possibility. It has also been known to produce false fingerprint matches, unfortunately for some innocent foreigners.

Some innocent foreign travelers are bothered by the cumbersome system, feeling unwelcome in a new place. Most places try to welcome travelers into their country. America does just the opposite.

The majority of people around the world aren't too fond of America at the moment, but the government shouldn't discourage the few that still want to experience our sinking dollar and spying government, oh - I guess I can't forget the scenic beaches and landscapes.

It seems like the government should be doing everything in its power to encourage travelers to visit and welcome them and maybe not even profile them in airports. That attitude could even win us more support and possibly even allow us to acquire allies when we are really in trouble.

Weekly Columnist Alex Sanders is a 4th-semester journalism and psychology double major. her columns appear on Wednesdays. She can be contacted at Alexandra.Sanders@UConn.edu.