April 3rd, 2004
According to this Reuters story, the US is going to start photographing and fingerprinting just about everyone who enters the country, extending the suspicious-foreigner treatment even to visitors from the "visa waiver" nations like Britain, Australia and Japan.
What puzzles me is: supposedly, this policy is being implemented because those nations aren't shifting over fast enough to the use of passports with "biometric features" (fingerprints and other identifying marks). But as far as I can tell, the US isn't shifting over to biometric passports, either: nothing at the State Department's passport-renewal page suggests that you need to give them your fingerprints, for example.
Has anyone here recently gotten (or updated) a US passport? Are your fingerprints now required as part of the application?
In the absence of such evidence, it appears that we're (yet again) holding the rest of the world to a tougher standard than ourselves. Lovely. So I can freely enter the US without hassle using my non-biometric US passport, but if I enter on my non-biometric Australian passport, it's fingerprinting/photography time.
But then, I suppose no-one with a US passport would ever do anything bad, right? Riiiiiiiight?
|Date:||April 3rd, 2004 12:02 pm (UTC)|| |
Well, I need to update my passport now so I guess I'll find out.
BTW, my boss tried to enter the country from Japan under a tourist visa. He got turned away from Detroit and made a 44 hour loop back to Japan. No one here in the US office is entirely sure why, but it means that our next company meeting is in Montreal...
|Date:||April 4th, 2004 08:54 am (UTC)|| |
As of two years ago when I renewed mine, there were no fingerprints on passports. I don't think anything has changed since then either.