US and Britain moving apart?

[Martino]

As part of its process of creating 'Fortress America', British citizens visiting the US will now have to apply for a visa, in person, at Grosvenor Square in London. Apart from having to pay £67 for the pleasure, all potential visitors will need to attend an interview, be photographed and finger printed.

These special arrangements will remain in place until Britain is able to introduce 'biometric passports'.

The US is already under fire for not allowing British and French airlines to travel to US destinations without stringent 'checks' on passengers beforehand - some random checks have been sprung on aircraft already on the apron for take off, delaying scheduled flights by up to three days. It has been pointed out that US airlines carrying non-American citizens are still being allowed to fly unimpeded, fueling speculation that this might be a covert trade war (US airlines fly the Atlantic at a loss).

So: is America getting the balance between liberty and security right, or is it giving in to paranoia? Is discouraging affluent Western tourists bad for America?

[Chester]

As part of its process of creating 'Fortress America', British citizens visiting the US will now have to apply for a visa, in person, at Grosvenor Square in London.
Do you have a source for this?

[Martino]

Do you have a source for this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3378717.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3371447.stm

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

[Chester]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3378717.stm
Ah, okay. Makes more sense now. Your post seemed to imply that border reciprocity was being completely wiped away and that all British visitors needed to get a visa.

But, according to the article, a visa is necessary only if your passport is up for renewal between 10/26/04 and some time in mid-2005 (e.g. a window of around six months).

That makes a whole lot more sense.

Also, I don't know what the big deal is about the fingerprinting and photographing. All countries should use such measures at all border crossings, if possible -- not just to help stop terrorism, but all cross-border crimes, in general.

[Martino]

Ah, okay. Makes more sense now. Your post seemed to imply that border reciprocity was being completely wiped away and that all British visitors needed to get a visa.

But, according to the article, a visa is necessary only if your passport is up for renewal between 10/26/04 and some time in mid-2005 (e.g. a window of around six months).

That makes a whole lot more sense.

Also, I don't know what the big deal is about the fingerprinting and photographing. All countries should use such measures at all border crossings, if possible -- not just to help stop terrorism, but all cross-border crimes, in general.

Well, working backwards, here the notion of citizens being finger printed and photographed for the purpose of a security database is viewed as something to be very concerned about. If you look at the broader picture, all the security measures which have already been brought in on both sides of the Atlantic, the special powers that our governments have given themselves, the continued detention of people without trial and all the rest of it, do you not feel concerned that in the attempt to protect democracies from terrorist attack, we are in danger of losing some of the freedoms upon which those democracies depend?

In the case of situations like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3373405.stm, information on the passengers was transmitted to some 22 US agencies. These agencies are exercising extraordinary powers well beyond their own national and commercial borders, based on intelligence which, to date, has found no threat.

The US trying to force foreign governments to introduce air marshals is yet another concern.

Regarding the date of the introduction of the new biometric passports, there is much concern as to whether this target for the introduction of the new passports can even be met. The formal trial of the chip technology only began in the first week of December 2003. These passports require very sophisticated technology, and again would be a part of a bigger system in which movements and details of individuals would be stored, and used, by the State.

Critics point out that such security measures would still not deter or trap potential criminals or terrorists, as there will always be ways around the technology. All that really happens is that the terrorists succeed in one of their goals. The terrorists are attacking democracy. If in defending democracy, we tamper with it, change it, remove freedoms, then the terrorists achieve victory.