The only way to successfully filter out terrorists at U.S. borders is through taking the initiative, and, as Sept. 11, 2001 showed, the only successful type of counter-terrorism is an active one. Therefore, some of the first defensive policies enacted following the terrorist attack, like the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, involved protecting America’s vulnerable doorways, specifically its airports.
Guardian
The recently created United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology system is a necessary progression of these initial policies and will further strengthen defense against terrorist penetration of U.S. borders. Its procedures merely expand upon previous methods of gathering information on individuals entering and exiting the United States (short questioning and an inspection of travel documents) while minimizing their inconvenience.
The main features added to the process are a biometric scanning of fingerprints and a digital photo that is taken of incoming travelers. Upon exiting the country, individuals will have their fingerprints scanned again and their visas will go through a machine that logs their departure.
The U.S.-V.I.S.I.T. program signals a revolutionary transformation in airport security and the tracking of international travelers. The intensive scanning of incoming people allows intelligence officials to stop terrorists before they leave the airport and enter a vast country with unlimited hiding places. Furthermore, the gathering of accurate data allows intelligence officials new means of tracking travelers and finding hints of suspicious activity, such as an unauthorized extension of a visit, and to act on them.
U.S.-V.I.S.I.T. also ushers in a new wave of technology that will lay the groundwork for a more effective system of identifying people with biometric technology, which looks at key features of a person’s fingerprints that cannot be imitated. It will ensure that the identity of a visa holder is legitimate and consistent. Overall, U.S.-V.I.S.I.T. stands to serve as a powerful tool in the war on terrorism.
However, much criticism has emerged of the program’s implementation. Reasons for its proposed elimination include accusations that it is invasive, unfairly selective and time-consuming.
The ACLU’s complaints of unfair selectivity are unfounded, as U.S.-V.I.S.I.T. will check all incoming visitors on non-immigrant (tourist, business, student and temporary worker) visas, regardless of any background information such as race, ethnicity or country of origin. The ACLU claims that the new system will further “”confuse”” travelers, though the ease and swiftness with which the process is enacted, in addition to the presence of personnel to assist individuals, casts enormous doubt on this assertion.
Another common grievance by civil libertarians is that U.S.-V.I.S.I.T. procedures are an invasion of one’s privacy. However, there is no searching of bags, no long interviews, and in fact very little intrusion of any kind. And if every database of people that is designed spurs fears of George Orwell’s “”1984,”” society will never be able to implement its superior technology for purposes of self-defense and might as well give up its counter-terrorism efforts; previous tactics have proved vastly insufficient and the need for change is clearly manifest.
To address the possible burden that U.S.-V.I.S.I.T. would place on travelers, studies performed by the Department of Homeland Security since Nov. 17, 2003 at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport showed, according to a press release, that “”the new procedures add an average of 15 seconds to the entry process.”” This experiment involved over 20,000 passengers and its results reveal the minimal negative implications of this program’s enactment on the average traveler’s trip.
If the United States is hesitant to place such small burdens on its incoming travelers, it will never present a formidable challenge to thwart and deter terrorists’ attempts at entering the country. Though forcing innocent individuals to fingerprint themselves is both awkward and inconvenient, sacrifices of comfort must be made to address a greater priority: homeland defense. After all, travel to the United States is a privilege, not a right.
International criticism of U.S.-V.I.S.I.T. is also highly unreasonable. Many of these nations have never faced terrorism, let alone the scale of which the United States is fighting, and therefore have no right to impose on America their standards of security and civil rights. There is no pretext for the 9/11 attacks and therefore no pretext for the limits of a nation in protecting itself from transnational terrorism of the brand that the United States faces.
Furthermore, those nations that have been plagued by major acts of terrorism, like Israel, have taken far more drastic courses of action to monitor the flow of individuals through their borders. The most extreme policies recommended by U.S. officials and politicians are dwarfed by airport security measures employed under the Israeli Airport Authority, which include intensive searches by heavily armed guards, rigorous background checks, a profiling system that would infuriate the most steadfast reactionaries among us and prolonged and intimidating interviews.
Due to the immense terrorist threat that Israel faces, criticism for its actions has been minimal, and rightly so. So, why is the United States still held to such an unfair level of scrutiny by the international community when the death toll of the Sept. 11 attacks surpassed the aggregated total of all terrorist attacks on Israel? With or without comparison, U.S. policies of airport security are both reasonable and tempered.
U.S.-V.I.S.I.T. is by no means a complete solution; indeed it will inspect only a fraction of the 500 million annual visitors to the United States. However, it is, as Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge stated, the “”first significant step in a series of steps”” to form not only a strong border defense, but also a meaningful deterrent of terrorism.
If the recent high terror alerts taught us anything, it is that the threat of a large-scale terrorist attack is a reality that must be dealt with. There is no reason to appropriate billions of taxpayer dollars to the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of protecting the nation if it is not allowed to safeguard America’s weakest leg ‹ its airports ‹ to its fullest ability.
There has been a dramatic reassessment of risk management post-9/11 and the U.S.-V.I.S.I.T. program is a continuation of the progress made by the Bush administration in playing an active role in counter-terrorism.
There are many arguments that criticize U.S.-V.I.S.I.T., but few offer any solutions to help secure U.S. borders. Instead, most criticism falls on the inconveniences and logistical obstacles of enacting such a policy. Passivity and inaction, however, proved to be the crucial weaknesses in U.S. defense that allowed the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 to occur. Therefore, the Department of Homeland Security has taken important preliminary steps in expanding the ability of the United States to better guard its points of entry from potential terrorists and other dangerous individuals, and for that it should be applauded.
