New immigration procedures

wrote in message
...
| I've read in a newspaper that from the Beginning of January
| all passengers arriving at US airports are subjected to
| fingerprinting and mugshots. All entrants are subject
| to these degrading procedures, no matter how often they
| have been visiting the US, what their background is and
| what the purpose of the visit is. I don't like to be treated
| as as a criminal under general suspicion by US authorities
| and will try to avoid to travel to the US in the future, as
| far as my job allows it. I hope that much of the tourists
| stay away, too.

I heard the same too. I will now go out of my way to avoid the USA, even if
it's just to catch a connection to elsewhere. I do not like the idea of my
fingerprints being kept on file in a foreign country's database. Especially
in the light of recent events.

Land of the Free? haha, I don't think so.

"colin" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
| I've read in a newspaper that from the Beginning of January
| all passengers arriving at US airports are subjected to
| fingerprinting and mugshots. All entrants are subject
| to these degrading procedures, no matter how often they
| have been visiting the US, what their background is and
| what the purpose of the visit is. I don't like to be treated
| as as a criminal under general suspicion by US authorities
| and will try to avoid to travel to the US in the future, as
| far as my job allows it. I hope that much of the tourists
| stay away, too.

I heard the same too. I will now go out of my way to avoid the USA, even
if
it's just to catch a connection to elsewhere. I do not like the idea of
my
fingerprints being kept on file in a foreign country's database.
Especially
in the light of recent events.

Land of the Free? haha, I don't think so.

I've got to say, I find the responses of a number of posters to this rather
peculiar. U.S. immigration procedures are matters internal to the U.S.
Whether they are appropriate or not (and I'm not venturing an opinion one
way or another) is a matter between U.S. citizens and their government.

When I visit another country (and I do quite often), I come as a guest, and
expect to follow the rules of that country, whether or not they comport with
my personal views of good governance. If I want to go to China (and I do
quite often), I go to their consulate, fill out a form that asks all sorts
of questions the answers to which I would not normally volunteer to
strangers, wait on a line, and pay for a visa. That's what the PRC requires
of me, so that's what I do. It's their country -- they can determine what
rules visitors must follow. If I want to go to France (and I go quite
often), and France required that my wife, before she became a U.S. citizen,
had to apply weeks in advance for a visa, and provide proof of financial
resources (in the form of bank statements), round-trip plane tickets, hotel
itineraries, proof of U.S. resident alien status, as well as make two trips
to the French consulate, it's their country, and their right to impose these
requirements. If most countries in the European Union (which I also visit
quite often) require that, as a non-resident tourist, I may only get a
V.A.T. refund by waiting in a long line at the airport upon my departure, or
else forfeit the refund, they are certainly free to do so, as I am just a
guest, and it would be rude of me to criticize my host's internal policies
and procedures. If, in Europe or Asia (where I go quite often) local laws
require that I surrender my passport upon checking in to a hotel, so that
the innkeeper can record my personal information and forward it to the
police (something, by the way, that is never done in the U.S.), I simply
smile as I hand over my passport, remembering that I am a guest in someone
else's country, and grateful that I have been allowed to visit; complaining
about the requirement would be both discourteous and unrealistic.

When I travel internationally, which I do a lot, I always remember that I am
there at the sufferance of the government and citizens of the countries I
visit and, though my personal beliefs may be at odds with the customs,
practices and laws of those countries, it would be both inconsiderate and
counter to the purpose of foreign travel to either judge those countries by
my beliefs, or to try to impose those beliefs upon them.

I'll bet, too, that most people will recognize that the U.S. is struggling
with reconciling its fundamental political principles with a concerted and
on-going attack by foreign fanatics, and, further, that the U.S. is
currently governed by an administration that represents the views of roughly
half, but only about half, of Americans. And, as a result, U.S. laws and
their enforcement may be a little more confused and troubling, and a little
more intrusive and inconvenient, than in the past. If you think the new
immigration requirements for foreign visitors are intrusive, try being a
U.S. citizen flying within the United States.

I really can't think of any countries in the world whose customs, practices
and laws I find so offensive that I wouldn't, nonetheless, be interested in
visiting them and, while there, I'd cheerfully comply with whatever
restrictions and requirements were placed on me. Of course, if there were
such a country, I simply wouldn't go.

You, of course, are free to do the same.

"PTRAVEL" wrote


I've got to say, I find the responses of a number of posters to this
rather
peculiar. U.S. immigration procedures are matters internal to the U.S.
Whether they are appropriate or not (and I'm not venturing an opinion one
way or another) is a matter between U.S. citizens and their government.
snip

Very eloquently put. Nice post.


I'll bet, too, that most people will recognize that the U.S. is struggling
with reconciling its fundamental political principles with a concerted and
on-going attack by foreign fanatics, and, further, that the U.S. is
currently governed by an administration that represents the views of
roughly
half, but only about half, of Americans.

Correction: Roughly hald OF THOSE WHO VOTED. That's a very important
distinction, as many may not understand that voting here is voluntary. I'll
bet that support for GW's policies, particularly as they pertain to dealing
with terrorism and potential attacks, is significantly higher than 50% of
the adult population.

-Martin

colin wrote:
I heard the same too. I will now go out of my way to avoid the USA, even if
it's just to catch a connection to elsewhere. I do not like the idea of my
fingerprints being kept on file in a foreign country's database. Especially
in the light of recent events.

Land of the Free? haha, I don't think so.

And they are extending their totalitarian policies too. They have begun to
detain without charge people who look like arabs in Iraq. The Red Cross now
has to spend time visiting those detained without charge and without access to
legal representation and send notices back to their families to indicate they
are still alive. The invading force (Bush regime) say that they suspect they
may have ties with terrorists.

In particular are two Iranian reporters which the USA invaders didn't like and
who have been detained for some time. So much for "free press" ideas.

"Martin Euredjian" wrote in message
y.com...
"PTRAVEL" wrote


I've got to say, I find the responses of a number of posters to this
rather
peculiar. U.S. immigration procedures are matters internal to the U.S.
Whether they are appropriate or not (and I'm not venturing an opinion
one
way or another) is a matter between U.S. citizens and their government.
snip

Very eloquently put. Nice post.

Thanks.



I'll bet, too, that most people will recognize that the U.S. is
struggling
with reconciling its fundamental political principles with a concerted
and
on-going attack by foreign fanatics, and, further, that the U.S. is
currently governed by an administration that represents the views of
roughly
half, but only about half, of Americans.

Correction: Roughly hald OF THOSE WHO VOTED. That's a very important
distinction, as many may not understand that voting here is voluntary.
I'll
bet that support for GW's policies, particularly as they pertain to
dealing
with terrorism and potential attacks, is significantly higher than 50% of
the adult population.

I did mean half of the population, as opposed to half of those who voted. I
think you're right to this extent -- support for George Bush, the man, is
significantly higher than 50%. Support for specific policies of the Bush
Administration, while probably over 50%, will vary, depending on the policy.
There is a significant number of people, who don't support many of his
policies, and that number, in some instances probably approaches (and in
some instances may even exceed) 50%. Of concern, though, is not the
relative percentages of pro-Bush vs. anti-Bush people, but the extent to
which the two camps are polarized. It's not a question of most of one camp
saying, "Yeah, I'm pretty happy with him," and the other camp saying, "Nah,
I'm not that happy with him." People either love him and his policies, or
hate him and his polices. There's no middle to the country anymore. The
last time I can recall this much of a chasm was during the 1960s.


-Martin

PTRAVEL wrote:
Whether they are appropriate or not (and I'm not venturing an opinion one
way or another) is a matter between U.S. citizens and their government.

Not when the USA breaks with international agreements. For instance, instead
of refusing entry (the accepted procedure which results in the person
remaining airside and sent on the next flight back to their point of origin),
allowing the person to enter, immediatly arresting the person, keeping them in
a US jail for a few days and then sending them to a 3rd country without
allowing the person to make a phone call, without advising the country on the
person's passport etc. The fact that they technically allow the person to
enter the USA is then no longer an immigration issue, it is a legal and human
rights issue.

Deportation procedures require that the person have at least a deportation
hearing, that he be given the chance to contact his embassy etc etc. In many
cases, the USA has broken those agreements. As a matter of fact, friends who
recently got a USA visa told me thay had to sign a waiver to any deportation procedures.

Yes, the USA has the right to refuse entry to anyone and everyone, but when it
does so, it should act according to international agreed procedures.

Sending a grand mother traveling from europe to USA to visit a daughter to a
jail upon landing in the USA is way out of bounds. Sending her back with a
simple "sorry mam, we can't let you enter the USA, we're sending you home on
next available flight" would have been the right thing to do instead of
slapping some handcuff on the poor old lady.

Inserted Finger wrote:
colin wrote:

I heard the same too. I will now go out of my way to avoid the USA, even if
it's just to catch a connection to elsewhere. I do not like the idea of my
fingerprints being kept on file in a foreign country's database. Especially
in the light of recent events.

Land of the Free? haha, I don't think so.


And they are extending their totalitarian policies too. They have begun to
detain without charge people who look like arabs in Iraq. The Red Cross now
has to spend time visiting those detained without charge and without access to
legal representation and send notices back to their families to indicate they
are still alive. The invading force (Bush regime) say that they suspect they
may have ties with terrorists.

And what does the Red Cross get for helping these people?? They get
attacked..

"PTRAVEL" wrote:

There's no middle to the country anymore. The
last time I can recall this much of a chasm was during the 1960s.

This is difficult time to be President. Anyone in that chair would be
taking rounds, no matter what you did. Frankly, I am a lot more concerned
about the continuing brain drain and erosion of the skilled workforce to
offshore interests than about terrorism. I think you can control the latter
with a greater inteligence effort and by tightening the financial screws on
countries we should not be tolerating (how many of the 9-11 thugs came from
Iraq?).

Something a lot of US critics don't seem to appreciate are the billions upon
billions of dollars that the US gives out to hundreds of nations all over
the world. This is money that's coming out of my pocket and your pocket (if
you are a tax-paying worker in the US). CNN has been doing a series of
reports on this and it is absolutely outrageous to realize what is going on.
Mexico, for example, is getting well in excess of four billion dollars a
year. And that's just one country! We have, apparently, subsidized entire
rail systems in Europe. Just incredible. So, it kind of ****es me off when
I read people say that they hate this country. Please, don't take my money
then! Let me spend it here, where it will be appreciated.

Anyhow, complex topic.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Martin Euredjian

To send private email:

where
"0_0_0_0_" = "martineu"

"Martin Euredjian" schreef in bericht
y.com...
"PTRAVEL" wrote:
We have, apparently, subsidized entire
rail systems in Europe. Just incredible.

Don't believe everything you read.

Sjoerd

mrtravel wrote:
And what does the Red Cross get for helping these people?? They get
attacked..


Because the USA government is desperate to find any justification for their
illegal invasion, and because the USA is so reluctant to hand over power to
the UN which has experience in rebuilding countries, I wouldn't be surprised
at all if the bombs weren't in fact comissioned by the USA.

Think about it. Those bombs allow the USA regime to switch the agenda away
from the lack of weapons of mass destruction and towards "terrorism" They
got a popular Iman, they got the UN building, the Red Cross and the main
compound/hotel used by americans (which was hit at the same time that one of
the US war criminals was inside (Wolfowitz). All designed to make it look like
these attacks are not directed only at Americans.

And now, the USA has even invented the main organiser of those attacks to help
brainwash americans into thinking that Al Queda is responsible for all that stuff.

Sorry, but americans proved that their intelligence was worthless, including
the falsified evidence on uranium purchases. Whatever the Bush regime spouts
out as an excuse to justify their invasion has the same lack of credibility.

If Americans really wanted the best for Iraq, they would admit that they need
to pull out and let the UN do its job (but USA still needs to pay the bills
for the damage it caused illegally).

You will note that the USA had no problems handing over power to a temporary
administration in Afghanistan, so why are they so adament that it is
impossible to hand over power to the temporary admin already in Iraq ?

The USA is unwanted in the middle east. It should learn to become neutral.

Ask yourself: Israel continues to build its wall, a act which is against the
peace plan brokered by Bush. Why then does the USA **VETO** a UN security
council resolution condemning Israel for breaking that peace plan ???????

Funny how the USA cried foul over the threaths of France, Germany, Russia
using their VETO last year, but the USA has no problem using its own VETO so
often so support Israel even when Israel is clearly at fault.

If Americans can't see why the middle east hates the USA, then the americans
are just plain stupid and they deserve more WTC disasters.

The problem is that americans are so well brainwashed that they still support
their Bush regime.