uncle_sam

"I'm a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen of the good old USA. I have nothing to hide. Take my fingerprints, please, and give me an express lane to check in at the airport. Those who feel civil-liberty infringement and everyone else can wait in the "other" line."

Wesley...I'm with you!

Uncle Sam

ira

LilyLace wrote
>...We do have a personal identification number here in the US, it is our social security number, ...I've often wondered why we don't use that number for our passports.<

When the act setting up Scial Security was passed, the majority of Americans were opposed to a national identitiy card. Thus, the SS number was not allowed to be used by the federal. state or local governments.

The act was amended to permit the SS number to be used as a taxpayer ID number. That is currently its only allowed use.

Here in Georgia, the state was using SS numbers for driver's license numbers. So many people complained that they stopped.

I believe that most Americans still oppose a national ID number.

Christina

This is really hypothetical for me as I don't go to Europe five times a year -- I wish. It is rare that I've gone twice.

Actually, if I had to go through the rigamarole I have in the past to get VISAs (to Egypt once and France another time), it would be one more nuisance added and I wouldn't got as often if it really were a hassle. It isn't even the fee so much as how much time that took. To get the Egyptian once, I had to mail off my passport and wait weeks--I was nervous about sending my passport, for one thing. I think you can in theory get one at the border, but at that time, I was advised it would be safer and quicker to have one in advance.

I had to wait in line at the French Consulate in Los Angeles about four hours to get that VISA.

I think the French VISA was good for a year, I don't recall the Egyptian one as I hadn't planned to go back in the same year anyway.

So, the VISAs would bug me and you couldn't just fly off on this quick e-trips, either, if they were needed in advance.

I wouldn't care at all about the fingerprints as I already have an FBI file on me and security clearance--as long as it was quick and didn't hold me up upon arrival, I just don't like more delays.

Bitter

If my reading of the statistics cited below are correct, the UK is a large source of tourists, but Canada and Mexico are significantly higher. If the problem becomes as horrible as some of you think or hope, I would suggest that our UK friends jet over to Mexico or Canada. [Warning, sarcasm coming] From there they can walk over to the US and, apparently, have as many rights, if not more, than those who obtained a visa and followed the law. http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2000...9.163941.25959 Note to Btilke: This post includes a veiled criticism of Bush's immigration plan.

ChatNoir

Bitter, you should know by now that veiled criticism of Bush is not enough. Do it right by laying out some horror story that has some wild stuff about trampled rights, privacy invasion, neglecting the environment and selling off the country to the rich.

capo

With that kind of a hassle and expense I'd probably scale back my trips to Europe from 37 times a year to 29.

bmw732002

Hey:

I would like to see the border crossing become manned again! I miss those checkpoints between countries! "Vher are yur paypas" gave me a sense of.... security!! I wonder what you European's think about going back to those border days before the Euro??
JOHN

ira

jody wrote,
>...I also read where the US gets 15,000,000 UK visitors a year,...<

I suggest you check that report. According to the gov't of the UK, the population is only about 59,000,000. That would mean that 1/4 of the population comes to the US each year.

See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?ID=7588

ChatNoir

Ira & Jody, here's what the Dept of Commerce shows for inbound overseas travlers to the USA as of 2002:

TOTAL OVERSEAS 19,116,707 100.0%

Western Europe 8,247,779 43.1%

United Kingdom 3,816,736 20.0%

Germany 1,189,856 6.2%

France 734,260 3.8%

Italy 406,160 2.1%

Netherlands 384,367 2.0%

Spain 269,520 1.4%

Ireland 259,687 1.4%

Switzerland 253,940 1.3%

Sweden 204,156 1.1%

Belgium 159,052 0.8%

Eastern Europe 354,905 1.9%

JJBhoy

Hi All,

I just want to back up what Jim Steel was saying earlier. No-one can (or should try to) deny the U.S. the right to put in place whatever controls they see fit, but it's undeniable that these will be a major hurdle to thousands of prospective UK visitors. I'm from Glasgow in the West of Scotland & this was the main front page story in our local daily newspaper yesterday.

Fortunately, my own family's passports will allow us to travel to the U.S. under the existing system, but if this wasn't the case I really can't imagine that I would be in a position to travel nearly 900 miles (return) to London with my wife & children to pick up visas - not to mention the expense involved.

The average interview time of two hours was also widely quoted on BBC News yesterday

sassy27

In regards to SS numbers and it's offical use is for a taxpayer ID number only, this is incorrect because how come when I was in college it was used as my ID number? I've attended my local community college, 2 state colleges and a private college and that was always the ID number. It is even used as my student loan and life insurance numbers. When I have sent applications for jobs to the state, I am required to include my SS# on both pages of the application for identification. Now I'm curious, does this mean all these uses are illegal?

RufusTFirefly

ira and sassy are both sort of right about the SSN. The only Federal government REQUIRED uses of the SSN are:
? Internal Revenue Service for tax returns and federal loans
? Employers for wage and tax reporting purposes
? States for the school lunch program
? Banks for monetary transactions
? Veterans Administration as a hospital admission number
? Department of Labor for workers? compensation
? Department of Education for Student Loans
? States to administer any tax, general public assistance, motor vehicle or drivers license law within its jurisdiction
? States for child support enforcement
? States for commercial driver?s licenses
? States for Food StampsThe Social Security Administration has always discouraged the use of the SSN for any other purposes.
? States for Medicaid
? States for Unemployment Compensation
? States for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
? U.S. Treasury for U.S. Savings Bonds

The Social Security Administration has always discouraged the use of the SSN for any other purposes.

However, nothing in the law prevents a private company or other governmental entity from requiring a citizen to provide their SSN to receive goods or services. You don't have to provide it to them, but then they don't have to provide you with their goods/services.

xyz123

Very interesting article in the NY Times regarding Brazil's decision to reciprocate the fingerprinting and visa business the US has imposed.

What is more disturbing, at least to me, is the position of American authorities. They claim their decision to do this is fine as they screen everybody (not true..the countries in the Visa Waiver programme for the time being are exempt) while Brazil's policy is only against Americans. Of course, the US is the one who made the decision not to put Brazil for whatever the reason into the visa waiver programme so it would seem to me that Brazil is totally within its right to do what it is doing which should be the position of the American authorities, right?

I just don't understand how anybody really believes this is going to make anybody one bit safer. After all the subhuman animals on 9/11 carried legal materials onto the planes and many of them (not all of them) were in the country quite legally.

Are all these measures just for show domestically as part of the current incumbent's re-election strategy you know look how safe we're making it? And a certain percentage of people buy into this? Just like WMD?

For a balanced view of this, there is a message board on the bbc web site where many foreigners express their total disgust with what is going on.

To me, it's all so troubling what the US feels it has to do to give its citizens this illusion of safety. So sad so sad and I would think other countries would have every right to reciprocate against Americans when travelling abroad. We'll all be sorry.

jody

< is also likely to cause concern among the global travel industry and tourism bodies in America.

More than 15 million tourists entered the United States under the visa waiver programme last year, accounting for two thirds of spending by foreign visitors.

Among the Britons likely to be caught up in the new regime are those heading for winter sunshine breaks in Florida, and those heading to ski resorts for the early season > From the UK Independent 1/7/04

I did misread the figure as being all UK tourists, rather than tourists traveling from countries that have a visa waiver program with the US. It is still a substantial number and they all will be affected.

Xenos

Link to the BBC message board that I think xyz referred to -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3368839.stm

GSteed

Re: Brazil, Entrance requirements were a local decision not a national one. Visa interviews are rarely two hours but the time used to get one are often much more. Polish citizens have to make an appointment by telephone (expensive), pay $100 application fee/visa is free if granted, lose work time, travel to Warszawa, no parking at Embassy, wait in line, and maybe get visa. Odds are very low. Visa may be for a single visit or good for up to ten years. Plus the above, there may be other requirements. American citizens with valid passport are welcome for up to three months/no visa.

LilyLace

One more IMPORTANT use of the SS number: Military ID

Flyboy

What will ultimately make the world a safer place will be a far greater spirit of common purpose and international cooperation. It should be the major thrust of U.S. policy and other peace-seeking nations. Instead, I fear that we are on a path of increased isolationism and diminishing rights. Paranoid, poorly targeted efforts are not only costly and ineffective, but they carry serious consequences of their own. Often, I've heard people say "If it makes us safer, then I'm all for it." Well, what if it doesn't? What then? It is like forming a circle to conduct a firing squad.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

platzman

Some folks apparently don't get the point of the post with the pizza ordering dialog. The point is this. All this information gathering from ordinary law-abiding citizens will lead not to catching criminals, but to intimidating and controlling the population at large. The advantage of that over the long-run certainly outweighs the advantage of catching criminals if your goal is totalitarianism. Criminals and sociopaths will always find ways to circumvent the system, but ordinary citizens will not.

ChatNoir

Platzman, can you please tell us exactly who you think has a goal of totalitarianism? The only people I know who have that goal are muslim extremists that want to create a new world order.

And as far as criminals and sociopaths always being able to find ways to circumvent the system, you discount the large numbers of dumb ones that are out there.