Newsstand - 'Fortress America' Keeping Tourists Away

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/03/BUGS8DI7PL1.DTL

"We need to strike that delicate balance'' between security and prosperity, he said. "The question is: Have we overreacted since Sept. 11?''

We have definitely overreacted since Sept. 11th. I hope international guests will continue to shun the US until those responsible for all this inSecruity are fired and we return to treating our visitors like guests, not felons.

As the article points out, even if the reality of "Fortress America" has moderated somewhat, the perception is very much out there and will affect us for a long, long time...

I live in the UK and used to travel alot to America, for my holidays. I do so less now. Although America has every right to do whatever they want, in deciding who comes into their country, I do still feel like a criminal every time I come in.
The fingerprinting and being photographed. That is what you do to criminals. I have friends of mine who have refused to travel to the USA as a result of these measures. They don't want to be treated like a criminal.
I cannot understand why America wants us all to have biometric passports. The cost of these passports is going to be prohibitive. They could cost up to £360 ( about $600). I would not be prepared to pay that much just for the privelige of travelling to America. It's just too much. That will put off alot of potential tourists.

All of this staying at home had nothing at all to do with the currency situation? For the article to by pass the fact that it now costs a German 30% more than prior to September 11th is not only silly, it is poor journalism.

All of this staying at home had nothing at all to do with the currency situation? For the article to by pass the fact that it now costs a German 30% more than prior to September 11th is not only silly, it is poor journalism.

It costs a German 30% more for what? I assume you're referring to the US dollar's value in relation to the euro, and if that's the case you have it perfectly backward. On September 10, 2001, a euro bought $0.90; on July 1, 2005 a euro bought $1.19. And it took me about 20 seconds to find this information.

This is why the decline in tourism and business visits to the US is so remarkable -- the US is a great value, particlularly for Europeans and English.

The pound is much higher now than 9/11.
I suppose that the popularity of America will definitley have declined for the French .

All of this staying at home had nothing at all to do with the currency situation? For the article to by pass the fact that it now costs a German 30% more than prior to September 11th is not only silly, it is poor journalism.

Are you sure about that USD:Euro relationship or are you picking some random/arbitrary date other than what the USD:Euro rate was trading at on the eve of September 11, 2001?

This is why the decline in tourism and business visits to the US is so remarkable -- the US is a great value, particlularly for Europeans and English.
Exactly.

Our "terrified of everything" attitude is costing us bigtime.

We're doing everything we can to keep tourists, students and business people out. Seeking to be crowned the "biggest cowards in the world" is a recipe for long-term economic trouble for the US.

As the article points out, even if the reality of "Fortress America" has moderated somewhat, the perception is very much out there and will affect us for a long, long time...
You are exactly right, people who have never been are reluctant to come, those who come once always want to come back.
Ive been fingerprinted and photographed twice now and it didnt affect my journey. At DFW there were queues and the officials were abrupt without being rude, at SFO it was fast and the officials were polite and helpful. If SFO had been my first ever visit id have wondered what the fuss was about, now LAX is another story!

Are you sure about that USD:Euro relationship or are you picking some random/arbitrary date other than what the USD:Euro rate was trading at on the eve of September 11, 2001?

On Sept 10, 2001, the Euro was worth $0.898. Today, it is $1.193. That means a 33% increase in its value against the dollar.

On Sept 10, 2001, the Euro was worth $0.898. Today, it is $1.193. That means a 33% increase in its value against the dollar.

Thanks. Just as was recollected: the US is, for euro-holders/-earners, approximately 33% cheaper to visit than it was nearly 4 years ago.

Who care about tourist? I don't as long, as I have illegal emigrants working for me.

How many TSA agents are there working on the USA/Mexico border?

Yup current rules and processes imposed by US are a big deterrent to visiting US and even to transitting on same a/c through to europe. Mostly go through asia now.

If I remember correctly, Iberia has also closed its Miami hub. Flights either go direct or terminate in Miami and then codeshare with AA.
I've always found it a HUGE hassle changing planes in the USA, from outside. To have to reclaim you bags,at the point of entry, clear customs and immigration and then re-check your bags is a huge inconvenience.
It's much better in the UK where you clear customs at the final point of landing.

A lot of other countries clear customs at port of entry - US isnt unusual there.

However it is a pain when not even entering the country - just transiting through - to have full immigration processes, collect bags and redeposit.

Who care about tourist? I don't as long, as I have illegal emigrants working for me.

You mean you want employees who are seeking to illegally leave the country? Are you employing convicted felons? :D

A lot of other countries clear customs at port of entry - US isnt unusual there.

However it is a pain when not even entering the country - just transiting through - to have full immigration processes, collect bags and redeposit.

But lots of countries do have sterile transit. The US has ceased this sensible procedure due to cowardice over people possibly leaving the sterile areas.

I hope IB sets up its new hub at HAV, showing that even the commies have more on the ball when it comes to transit policies than the dopes who xset up the disgusting US-VISIT program.

The US process is particularly dumb for pax travelling on NZ1/2 LHR-AKL vv transiting through LAX. Almost all pax are forced into guarded holding pen & cannot roam the airport, yet still have to complete immigration process :mad:

The US process is particularly dumb for pax travelling on NZ1/2 LHR-AKL vv transiting through LAX. Almost all pax are forced into guarded holding pen & cannot roam the airport, yet still have to complete immigration process :mad:

Hopefully more New Zealanders will choose other routes, thus denying the US landing fees. Also, hopefully those who would have stopped over in the US will chose to stop over elsewhere, denying the US tourism dollars.

These disgusting immigration policies will cease only if would-be visitors to the US tell the US to go take a flying ...

I hope IB sets up its new hub at HAV, showing that even the commies have more on the ball when it comes to transit policies than the dopes who xset up the disgusting US-VISIT program.

I think that Havana would be facing a much smaller risk by not checking passengers. You might be surprised at how few people are seeking to become illegal immigrants to Cuba.

You might be surprised at how few people are seeking to become illegal immigrants to Cuba.

I would not be at all surprised. Filthy, totalitarian commie governments tend to be unattractive to would-be immigrants.

Too bad the US is striving so hard to be more like the commies. :td:

In some places, it takes three (3) months for prospective visitors to the US to even get an interview for a visa. Genereally this requires people from outside a city that has such an interview presence to come in, stay overnight and gamble on non-refundable application and visa-related fees. If the prospective visitor gets lucky, they get a visa; if the prospective visitor get unlucky (i.e., a consulate "official" or contractor who cannot get facts straight based on demonstrated semi-illiteracy), then the hitherto prospective visitor may get denied and find themselves having spent money in vain: money for 1 or 2 "domestic roundtrip" airfares to the nearest consulate, multi-day hotel stays and non-refundable fees. No wonder some people are turned off.

One interviewer demanded of a widow: "Tell us about your dead husband, how he died and what you did that day." :rolleyes:

(After that experience, this widow said if she were not to get the visa, then she will just have her family and friends meet her on vacation in Europe, Asia or South America. Well, two weeks after I heard that story she did get a 10-year multiple entry visa.)

I cannot understand why America wants us all to have biometric passports. The cost of these passports is going to be prohibitive. They could cost up to £360 ( about $600). I would not be prepared to pay that much just for the privelige of travelling to America. It's just too much. That will put off alot of potential tourists.

No argument about anything else, but let's get our facts straight. It was the UN and the EU that actually were the frontrunners in legislating for the adoption of the biometric passports, not US. All countries right now are finding it difficult to actually adopt the new system, but it is coming. Don't blame US for that one.

I believe you were thinking machine-readable passports (HUGE difference). US requires or will soon, of any citizen of a no-visa or whatever it's called country to have one.


Here is a little history lesson:

Passports, please
The push for better passports began in 1997 under the guidance of the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, a UN agency. An ICAO technology working group was charged with establishing better security standards for travel documents, standards that could be applied worldwide and would be cost effective.

In 2002, ICAO came out with what is called the "New Orleans Resolution" (named after the city where it was voted on). In the resolution, ICAO endorsed facial recognition as the biometric identification technology of choice, with fingerprints and iris scans as optional, supplemental forms of biometric identification.

Fingerprints--despite providing the most accurate means of identifying a person--were ruled out because of the criminal overtones. Governments worried that their citizens would feel like they were being arrested.

"Australia, Canada and the U.S. ruled it out right away," said Kefauver, the former U.S. official, who chaired the technology working group on this issue for ICAO.

No argument about anything else, but let's get our facts straight. It was the UN and the EU that actually were the frontrunners in legislating for the adoption of the biometric passports, not US. All countries right now are finding it difficult to actually adopt the new system, but it is coming. Don't blame US for that one.

I believe you were thinking machine-readable passports (HUGE difference). US requires or will soon, of any citizen of a no-visa or whatever it's called country to have one.


Here is a little history lesson:

Passports, please
The push for better passports began in 1997 under the guidance of the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, a UN agency. An ICAO technology working group was charged with establishing better security standards for travel documents, standards that could be applied worldwide and would be cost effective.

In 2002, ICAO came out with what is called the "New Orleans Resolution" (named after the city where it was voted on). In the resolution, ICAO endorsed facial recognition as the biometric identification technology of choice, with fingerprints and iris scans as optional, supplemental forms of biometric identification.

Fingerprints--despite providing the most accurate means of identifying a person--were ruled out because of the criminal overtones. Governments worried that their citizens would feel like they were being arrested.

"Australia, Canada and the U.S. ruled it out right away," said Kefauver, the former U.S. official, who chaired the technology working group on this issue for ICAO.

What the US government opposed in both 1997 and in 2002 was the use of fingerprints as the sole biometric identifier. In 1997, the US government did not oppose biometric passports; we opposed the use of fingerprints as the sole biometric. And in 2002, our government certainly did not oppose biometric passports for non-Americans either; it was just praying that the visa waiver countries would play along faster and agree and implement certain biometric (and more) "standards".

Setting the record straight. ;)

What the US government opposed in both 1997 and in 2002 was the use of fingerprints as the sole biometric identifier. In 1997, the US government did not oppose biometric passports; we opposed the use of fingerprints as the sole biometric. And in 2002, our government certainly did not oppose biometric passports for non-Americans either; it was just praying that the visa waiver countries would play along faster and agree and implement certain biometric (and more) "standards".

Setting the record straight. ;)


If that's the case and I'm not saying it isn't, please explain this little fact - the EU biometric passports will have about twice as much personal info when compared to US biometric passports?

If that's the case and I'm not saying it isn't, please explain this little fact - the EU biometric passports will have about twice as much personal info when compared to US biometric passports?

I am not here to justify what the EU may or may not do. However, certain EU-member countries are under "some" US government pressure to deliver certain deliverables of which the US government would be rather fond: these include biometric passports. especially from Belgium. ;)

That said, could you please explain this little fact -- what are these "EU biometric passports" of which you speak?

Last I heard with (just) the Swedish and Spanish officials involved with these matters for their own countries, there was still disagreement between various countries (within the EU) on various aspects of biometric passports, from beginning of implementation, to issuance, to desired end product (and much in between the different covers). Maybe I'm a little dated.

Just to keep things straight, "personal info" and "biometric data" are not interchangeable terms as far as I am concerned; that is, some "personal info" is not classified as "biometric data" for purposes of this conversation.

If that's the case and I'm not saying it isn't, please explain this little fact - the EU biometric passports will have about twice as much personal info when compared to US biometric passports?
The EU intends to have that data encrypted, the US wants all data to be unencrypted. I don't like either, but I like walking around with all my "unique" identifiers unencrypted so any terrorist or identity thief could swipe them least.

The EU intends to have that data encrypted, the US wants all data to be unencrypted. I don't like either, but I like walking around with all my "unique" identifiers unencrypted so any terrorist or identity thief could swipe them least.

I don't want any identifiers included in anyone's passport! :mad:

I don't want any identifiers included in anyone's passport! :mad:

I was watching a CNN report a few days ago about the UK's proposed ID cards. Apparently they will cost about 300 Pounds Sterling each and will be loaded with all kinds of info.

There have been newspaper reports that the government is considering financing the program by selling some of the info to private companies but the Home Office denied it was planning to sell access to the data base.

It was worded vaguely enough to allow the reader to understand that access to the data base would not be provided but that info from the data base might be.

A lot of other countries clear customs at port of entry - US isnt unusual there.

However it is a pain when not even entering the country - just transiting through - to have full immigration processes, collect bags and redeposit.


Also, I cannot understand the stupidity of having to go through TSA security after clearing customs from an international flight. What can happen at a secure airport? I guess the TSA doesn't consider the airport secure.

What the US government opposed in both 1997 and in 2002 was the use of fingerprints as the sole biometric identifier. In 1997, the US government did not oppose biometric passports; we opposed the use of fingerprints as the sole biometric. And in 2002, our government certainly did not oppose biometric passports for non-Americans either; it was just praying that the visa waiver countries would play along faster and agree and implement certain biometric (and more) "standards".

Setting the record straight. ;)

Please don't make up facts as needed. When and if you have something to back up your made up claims, come back and argue your point.

I and few others have witnessed and agreed on this issue. You are very well known to make up stories just so you can debate issues. (AA CEO stating that AAdvantage has outlived it's purpose, is one of the funniest ones)

I will not reply to any of your posts from now on unless you provide some credible evidence to back it up. Just stating some unsubstantiated facts won't do. Sorry!


I do appreciate your help with travel questions, especially Buenos Aires. Thanks!

All of this staying at home had nothing at all to do with the currency situation? For the article to by pass the fact that it now costs a German 30% more than prior to September 11th is not only silly, it is poor journalism.

ROTFLMAO.

Please don't make up facts as needed. When and if you have something to back up your made up claims, come back and argue your point.

I and few others have witnessed and agreed on this issue. You are very well known to make up stories just so you can debate issues.

Your claims are your claims. Everyone can find people to "agree" with them. That does not make them right.

(Not to go off-topic further, but about "making up stories", here's just one example where such claim was made: I posted about prison abuses in Iraq before they were publicized, it too was basically called "making up stories just so you can debate issues". We know what came of that. I could go into a whole list of other such examples, but then that would take us to OMNI-land, and that's not where this thread is located.)

(AA CEO stating that AAdvantage has outlived it's purpose, is one of the funniest ones)

[Knock, knock.]

Trick or treat? Trick or treat?

Halloween. Halloween (in a certain time zone) from the first post to the last post, and some got "scared". Bad trick apparently. Let's not lose a sense of humor in the process.

Bringing up ancillary matters from outside of a given thread seems to be -- what do they say? -- off topic? But that won't get around the following non-response to questions asked.

I will not reply to any of your posts from now on unless you provide some credible evidence to back it up. Just stating some unsubstantiated facts won't do. Sorry!

That's ok, but how convenient. I answered your question but you skirted mine.

Here's a reminder of what I posted and what was not responded to:

That said, could you please explain this little fact -- what are these "EU biometric passports" of which you speak?

Last I heard with (just) the Swedish and Spanish officials involved with these matters for their own countries, there was still disagreement between various countries (within the EU) on various aspects of biometric passports, from beginning of implementation, to issuance, to desired end product (and much in between the different covers). Maybe I'm a little dated.

Regardless of skirting the question or not, should you not have cited where you brought in what were clearly quotes from an article? The least we can do is attribute published quotes we cut and paste to their source.

Passports, please
The push for better passports began in 1997 under the guidance of the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, a UN agency. An ICAO technology working group was charged with establishing better security standards for travel documents, standards that could be applied worldwide and would be cost effective.

In 2002, ICAO came out with what is called the "New Orleans Resolution" (named after the city where it was voted on). In the resolution, ICAO endorsed facial recognition as the biometric identification technology of choice, with fingerprints and iris scans as optional, supplemental forms of biometric identification.

Fingerprints--despite providing the most accurate means of identifying a person--were ruled out because of the criminal overtones. Governments worried that their citizens would feel like they were being arrested.

"Australia, Canada and the U.S. ruled it out right away," said Kefauver, the former U.S. official, who chaired the technology working group on this issue for ICAO.

See what was "it" that was ruled out? I highlighted it in bold: fingerprints as the sole biometric. ;) Maybe the author of the following article http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5313650.html is not wholly or properly informed/communicating, but on that basic point he appears to be right (certainly according to Swedish and Spanish government employees involved in these matters and according to what transpired in 1997).

I do appreciate your help with travel questions, especially Buenos Aires. Thanks!

You are welcome. It's a great place with which I have much material connection (i.e., I also hope the currency again appreciates sooner than later). In any event, one can disagree about certain matters, but certain experiences -- food and more -- are certainly not disagreeable to the stomach. "Viva lomo!"

I was watching a CNN report a few days ago about the UK's proposed ID cards. Apparently they will cost about 300 Pounds Sterling each and will be loaded with all kinds of info.

There have been newspaper reports that the government is considering financing the program by selling some of the info to private companies but the Home Office denied it was planning to sell access to the data base.

It was worded vaguely enough to allow the reader to understand that access to the data base would not be provided but that info from the data base might be.

Upwards of £300. In any event, there will be "leaders" and "liars" to be found in many places and plenty of citizens willing to follow such people as they move forward on the "security at any cost" march as long as they perceive their fantasy (and comfort) becoming reality, regardless of the costs, means and consequences.

These are some general questions that I have but cannot find answers to either:

Will there be a practical difference in outcome between access to the data base(s) and access to info from the data base(s)? Or is it just a partition of which info is readily publicly available data and which info is "'only government retained data' until a slip-up?

Before the term Fortress America (re-)entered the public discourse in light of post-9/11 changes, the term Fortress Europe was well-bantered about. For purposes of trade, thankfully that fortress is not what it once used to be.

All of this staying at home had nothing at all to do with the currency situation? For the article to by pass the fact that it now costs a German 30% more than prior to September 11th is not only silly, it is poor journalism.
Even at my age, I can tell it's the otherway around. In the light of the fact that Euro and the Sterling are worth more in US$ than they were prioor to Sept 2001, it would cost the Europeans less to travel to the U.S. When we went to Austria in Feb. 2002 during Valentine's day week, Euro was worth 89 cents. The last I checked a couple of weeks ago, t was hovering $1.20, having flirted with $1.35 in the past.

Oct. 25: Travelers from 27 mostly European nations that do not need visas to enter the United States will be required to carry passports with tamper- proof digital photographs of themselves.

Jan. 1: American citizens re-entering this country after visits to Caribbean nations will be required to carry U.S. passports to get back in. Currently, a driver's license or birth certificate will do.

Oct. 26, 2006: Citizens of 27 nations who do not need visas to enter the United States will be required to carry machine-readable passports from their home countries, embedded with biometric data such as their digital fingerprints and iris scans. (This requirement has been postponed twice, most recently last week.)

Jan. 1, 2008: American citizens re-entering this country from Canada and Mexico will be required to carry U.S. passports.


So Basically the people from countries who don't need visas are the ones that need the biometric passports. The visa waiver program was created because the people from these countries are our friends. So lets make it even more ostly for them to visit. As someone else mentioned the countries that visas are required for examin all sorts of stuff including work and family history, owned assets including bank accounts, almost anything short of a rectal probe.

Personally I love to travel and would hate to have the limits and difficulties that others have to visit the US. That being said I think other nations should require the same from us that we require of them. If Europeans need biometric passports to visit here, then Americans should need them to visit there. If other people are required to take a rectal exam, then we should be required to do the same. I mean what the heck, we're going to make it tougher for Americans even to return home. Maybe one of these days I'll head out and not bother coming back.

As long as these changes are seen as a minor inconvenience to 'them derned furners' John Q. Public isn't going to care. If we are treated the same when we go abroad maybe it will wake a few people up. Of course the stat I usually hear is that only 7% of us Yanks even have passports so why should we care.

Much of the discussion on this topic concentrates on the hassles of the passport and TSA procedures. Yet since 9/11 there is an increasing feeling for us visitors to the US that the hosile attitude is spreading into the general public and across all walks of life. Things like restaurant service, which always used to be held up in the UK as an example to follow, has really gone downhill for visitors. We are aggressively criticised for being inadequate tippers. Car rentals that used to explain things to visitors from overseas now take a "well you should know" attitude to questions. Fellow airline passengers are more intolerant. And so on.

It wasn't apparent immediately after 9/11 (I can remember being very much welcomed to a deserted Florida a couple of months later), but has grown over the years since. The "damned furriners" attitude of government and politicians is extending across the country.

OK, we can go somewhere else (and are doing so). Not a big problem for us to be honest. But those in the US will hopefully see it. For goodness sake, Boeing are now having difficulty training pilots of their customer overseas airlines because of all the immigration red tape for coming to the training courses. So the airlines look to Airbus. A minor detail but there are many instances and it all adds up.

.....

I don't want any identifiers included in anyone's passport! :mad:

I think you meant ;) ...

You don't want your name, photos, nationality, etc. in your passport? That's a blank piece of paper (wait, that has your fingerprints on it). :)

I think you meant ;) ...

You don't want your name, photos, nationality, etc. in your passport? That's a blank piece of paper (wait, that has your fingerprints on it). :)

I think he meant biometric identifiers .... which is what we were discussing, right? ;)

I think he meant biometric identifiers .... which is what we were discussing, right? ;)

Ding! Ding! Ding! :)

I think he meant biometric identifiers .... which is what we were discussing, right? ;)
All passports already use a biometric identifier - the photograph.

One iteration required a chip storing a digital copy of the photograph along with other, unspecified identifiers. It's the latter most object too.

All passports already use a biometric identifier - the photograph.

One iteration required a chip storing a digital copy of the photograph along with other, unspecified identifiers. It's the latter most object too.

You may or may not be (denotatively- or creatively-speaking) necessarily correct. However, for purposes of simplifying this discussion, most of us are not referring to photographs as biometrics. And in any event, all passports do not have the photographs such that one can call the photograph a reliable biometric identifier. After all, photographs are not generally considered specific and uniquely identifiable. (Hint: Identical twins, siblings, acquaintances, etc. often share the same photograph -- legal or not. ;) )

... or are we to have a discussion that a handwriting sample or a sketched/painted portrait is a reliable biometric identifier too? :D

Also, I cannot understand the stupidity of having to go through TSA security after clearing customs from an international flight. What can happen at a secure airport? I guess the TSA doesn't consider the airport secure.
You have been in contact with your checked bags, so it is possible that you could have transferred something not permitted in the cabin from your checked bags to your cabin bags.

FWIW, there are several places that send you through security even when just transiting (i.e. not picking up checked bags). I have experienced this in NRT, HKG and SIN.

FWIW, there are several places that send you through security even when just transiting (i.e. not picking up checked bags). I have experienced this in NRT, HKG and SIN.

LHR and LGW too. :(

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/03/BUGS8DI7PL1.DTL


blah blah blah.. typical anti-american types making their valid points. (a bit boring since they would find points, if they didnt exist anyway)

You people are forgetting that more than 50% of the people didn't vote for our current idiot and we have no control over the cronies in the TSA that he has put in place. We make what points we can in the media, but large parts the less educated, easily swayable center of the country thinks our president represents God himself. :eek:

What are we supposed to do? We see portions of our country going down the toilet, but we can't do anything about it. I am sorry I guess. Not much else to say.. :confused:

You people are forgetting that more than 50% of the people didn't vote for our current idiot

That is true but keep in mind that considerably less than 50% of the people don't live in Massachusetts and therefore were unable to vote for either of our current idiots.