More on Photos & fingerprints in Brazil

[imrthr]

Today I received a telephone call from a friend who arrived in Rio yesterday. He told me that the photo & fingerprinting he experienced when he entered Rio is the old fashioned ink process. This is when the fingerprint taker rolls your fingers across an ink pad and then across a fingerprint card.

 

After my friend's fingerprints were taken, he was given some grease and was told to rub the grease on his fingers in order to loosen the ink. He was also told to tear out a page from a nearby tattered telephone book and to use the torn out page from the telephone book as a method to clean the grease and ink from his fingers.

 

After my friend was cleared by Brazilian immigration, he was allowed to use a nearby washroom to further clean his fingers. The washroom had only cold tap water which was useless against the grease that my friend had been told to put on his fingers.

 

There was no paper in the washroom. Out of frustration my friend merely rubbed his fingers on his shirt to clean them of the grease and ink. He assumes that the grease and ink will come out in the wash and stated that he really does not care at this point.

 

Needless to say, unless the retaliation process is rescinded or at least made similar to the process in America where inkless prints are taken, tourism to Brazil will take a steep dive after sufficient articles are written about the bizarre entry procedures in Brazil. It really seems childish for Brazil to retaliate against all American tourists merely because we have morons in Washington, D.C. running our country.

 

I leave for Brazil next week which will be my fourth visit to that spendid country. It would be nice if there were changes to the process or at least inkless prints by the time I get there. I will remember to bring some Kleenex just in case the old system is still in place.

 

Despite the fact that I like Brazil, I am disappointed that their government resorts to such a payback method.

[BillyZ]

>"Despite the fact that I like Brazil,

>I am disappointed that their government

>resorts to such a payback method."

 

Correction: Fingerprinting tourists was not instigated

by the Brazil's national government, it was one judge

(whose keen analytical skills were demonstrated by his

assertion that the new U.S. practice of fingerprinting

was every bit as bad as the Nazi genocide of millions

of Jews). My understanding is the Lulu's administration

is working to overturn the ruling of the judge, who like

many U.S. judges, seems to think he can unilaterally

dictate policy without needing to bother with elected

representatives.

 

As for the wisdom of the new U.S. policy, which you

continue to denounce, I will respect Tri's decision to

move that discussion to the "Politics Forum."

[BillyZ]

IMRTHR, I also meant to add "thanks" for filling

us in on how the practice is currently being

implemented, greasy ink and all! (Guidebooks

will be adding tips about the best handi-wipes

to bring to Brazil.)

 

I am skeptical that fingerprinting (even the

good old-fashioned greasy kind) will do as

much damage to Brazil tourism as you suspect.

I am inclined to think that the visa hassle

screens out the impetuous and faint-hearted

already. Most people I know would be amused

and consider Brazilian fingerprinting a chance

to add to their collection of travel tales.

But, either way, we should begin to find out

whose guess is right in just a few weeks.

[imrthr]

>

>As for the wisdom of the new U.S. policy, which you

>continue to denounce, I will respect Tri's decision to

>move that discussion to the "Politics Forum."

>

 

 

Correction, Tri did not move that discussion to the Politics Forum. I discussed the move with him and he told me that he did not move my posting and does not know who moved it to Politics.

 

You missed the point of my message. My message was to advise the readers of this board who frequently visit Brazil what to currently expect upon their entry into Brazil.

 

The treatment now given American visitors is a point of discussion for many people on this board who visit Brazil. The treatment is demeaning and is a direct retaliation to America's new policy.

 

If you reread my message, I feel confident that you will determine that my posting was advisory and not as you stated, to "denounce" the "wisdom" of the new policy of America to photograph and fingerprint certain visitors to our country.

[trilingual]

According to the Brazilian news, the process has been speeded up and is improving. In São Paulo they reported that a full set of prints isn't being taken, just a thumbprint. That's speeding things up considerably.

 

There were enough shots of visitors with smudgy fingers that it probably is a good idea to have some Handi-wipes with you. Bausch & Lomb makes some similar wipes for cleaning glasses that are just permeated with alcohol; I'd guess those would work well for cleaning off any excess ink. If anyone else has any practical ideas, they'd be welcome! Meanwhile, just keep grinning and bearing it. And remember the dramatic eye shadow, the Dame Edna glasses, etc.!!!

[Guest msclonly]

There is a different reason why the U.S. is fingerprinting for security and terrorist control! And I am all for it. We have been TOO lax for too long!

 

Brazil is doing it to reciprocate against the U.S. policy. They don't really have a reason for doing it fpr seciroty AND that is not their intention!

[BillyZ]

I assume imrthr posted his reply without reading

my second post which thanks him for his update

on current Brazilian practices.

 

As for my one sentence (about the Politics Forum)

which bothered him, it was in response to his one

sentence again attacking the new U.S. policy.

 

As for whether or not Tri or some other moderator

indeed moved the political debate to the Politics

Forum, I was relying entirely on imrthr's post #6832

below which plainly stated...

 

"This topic has been moved by the moderator of

this forum. It can be found at:

http://babydb.male4malescorts.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=17&topic_id=6121 "

 

Cheers.

[Guest tinman]

>I am skeptical that fingerprinting (even the

>good old-fashioned greasy kind) will do as

>much damage to Brazil tourism as you suspect.

>I am inclined to think that the visa hassle

>screens out the impetuous and faint-hearted

>already.

 

Brazil gets most of its tourists from Europe and not from the U.S. so this will hardly dent their tourist industry at all, unless the Europeans feel the need to join this silly American assault on liberty.

[trilingual]

>Brazil gets most of its tourists from Europe and not from the

>U.S. so this will hardly dent their tourist industry at all,

>unless the Europeans feel the need to join this silly American

>assault on liberty.

 

Actually, Argentina is (or was) the largest source of foreign tourists in Brazil. Europe is next, followed by the U.S. However, according to the local news (which has been reporting a lot on tourism issues in the past few weeks) the U.S. is the single biggest source of non-Argentine visitors, at least to Rio. Brazil seems to keep its tourism statistics country-by-country, and there have been more tourists from the U.S. than any individual European country, at least this year. Something like 26% of tourists in Rio for New Year's were from the U.S. Of course, in the aggregate, there are more tourists from Europe than the U.S., so "tinman" is correct in that regard. And Europeans tend to be more adventurous (plus they have longer vacations) so they predominate as non-Argentine tourists in the rest of Brazil. So far, Americans tend to stay in or near Rio. (Not M4Mers, though. We're a special breed!)

[BillyZ]

European fingerprinting

 

In fact, various European countries have already

been using fingerprinting on various classes of

people seeking to enter! The Brits have singled

out Sri Lankans, all of whom must be fingerprinted

when applying for a visa. Several countries require

fingerprints for those requesting long-term visas

(if they come from certain countries). Last spring

the French cabinet approved fingerprinting *all*

visa applicants, but that has not been implemented

yet.

[trilingual]

>There is a different reason why the U.S. is fingerprinting

>for security and terrorist control! And I am all for it. We

>have been TOO lax for too long!

>

>Brazil is doing it to reciprocate against the U.S. policy.

>They don't really have a reason for doing it fpr seciroty AND

>that is not their intention!

 

I question if the U.S. is REALLY doing this for security purposes. If it were, it would fingerprint and photograph ALL arriving passengers, and ESPECIALLY the ones arriving from visa waiver countries, because those passengers have gone through no meaningful screening process at all prior to boarding or arriving in the U.S. Currently, the U.S. is only obligating citizens of the mostly poorer, "non-white" countries to undergo this process, but those people require a visa to visit the U.S., and the U.S. visa process is lengthy, invasive and exhaustive. We already know virtually everything about someone who arrives in the U.S. with a visa, so what extra security advantage is gained by photographing and fingerprinting them on arrival? The new U.S. visas are computer generated and incorporate the visitor's photo into the actual visa (the visas look a lot like the cover page of a U.S. passport, with computer readable ID numbers and such). What else is needed? And why are we additionally burdening citizens of countries which haven't been sources of terrorism problems, when we're allowing citizens of countries like France and Germany, which have large populations of disaffected young Muslim men, to enter the U.S. completely unscreened? Is this crazy? Or what?

 

As for Brazil, the current measures are unquestionably retaliatory. Brazil (and every other sovereign nation) has the right to do that. Whatever rights or privileges you think you have as a U.S. citizen stop the moment you leave the territory of the U.S. Once you're in another country, you become subject to its laws, just as foreigners become subject to American law when they enter the U.S. If that bothers anyone, they should stay home. (And many Brazilians and other foreigners are indeed staying home, or visiting and vacationing in more welcoming environments than the U.S. If you don't believe me, just ask the tourism officials in Florida or NY!) Americans also do not have a RIGHT to visit any other country. It's strictly up to each country to decide who it allows into its territory. If you think what Brazil is doing is unpleasant, try getting a tourist visa to Saudi Arabia. (Especially if you're Jewish!) Or North Korea, or Bhutan. Since the collapse of the Iron Curtain it's become easier on the whole for Americans to travel without visas in much of the world, but there are still countries that have onerous visa and entry procedures for Americans. Comparatively speaking, Brazil is a snap, even with its visa and new photograph/fingerprint requirements.

 

Anyway, to be accurate about the current situation, it isn't "Brazil" that's retaliating. A single federal court judge in Mato Grosso do Sul ordered the reciprocal treatment. The federal government didn't implement this measure and will probably appeal the order, because it represents an unwarranted intrusion by the courts into the conduct of foreign affairs. The Rio tourism industry and government are also planning to appeal. In Brazil, as in the U.S., foreign affairs are constitutionally the prerogative of the executive and legislative branches. The courts have very limited jurisdiction in foreign affairs. However, the judicial system in Brazil works differently than in the U.S. If I remember correctly, the Brazilian federal police (which administer immigration, among other things) are part of the judicial system, so when a judge orders the police to start fingerprinting arriving Americans, the police have no choice but to obey unless and until the order is revoked or overturned. (In many, perhaps most countries, the police and the prosecutors are part of the judicial system and not the executive branch, as in the U.S. They respond to and are directed by judges, not elected officials.) Anyway, there's a good chance a higher court will overturn the actions of the judge in MS.

 

So stay tuned for further developments. Meanwhile, the nightly news on Globo is just ADORING this real-life soap opera. It's been the lead story most nights for the past week or so!

[BillyZ]

Who gets thumb printed?

 

Relatively few Swiss or Brits or others

from affluent countries (exempt from the

new policy) use their tourist visits to

immigrate illegally -- in sharp contrast

to a disproportionate number of those

coming from poorer countries with stagnant

economies. Thus, the latter group gets

tough visa requirements.

 

Nevertheless, Tri makes a persuasive case

that the new digital thumb prints should

be applied to everybody. After all, the

shoebomber (Robert Reid?) bore a British

passport.

 

I am agnostic as to the ultimate value of

the new entry system. Obviously, we all

want to maximize both security and privacy,

not an easy thing to do.

[Guest tinman]

RE: Who gets thumb printed?

 

>Relatively few Swiss or Brits or others

>from affluent countries (exempt from the

>new policy) use their tourist visits to

>immigrate illegally -- in sharp contrast

>to a disproportionate number of those

>coming from poorer countries with stagnant

>economies. Thus, the latter group gets

>tough visa requirements.

 

It really is not at all that simple. Have you ever been to Paris or London? Do you really think all those Aussies and Canadians working there are in full compliance with their tourist visa requirements? How many lawyers, bankers and other service professionals enter third world countries including Brazil as tourists and proceed to do business? Speaking about "illegal" immigrants really just serves to beg the question. That's why it is so laughable for those who are descended from immigrants in the U.S. to cry about illegal immigration and brag about how their ancestors immigrated legally, when in fact at the time they immigrated there were few prohibitions on immigration.

[Guest msclonly]

Thanks Billy for the response to Tri's rather lengthy response to rationalize his position. The flaw in his dissertation, that finger printing only duplicates what we already know about the person from his passport is faulty.

 

The fingerprinting is TOO prove the person IS the person named in the passport, and is not an assummed FALSE identity! Pasports and other papers can be fabricated, but fingerprints can not. Too many have assumed identities.

 

This is substantiated by those, that go so far as to remove the fingerprinting part of the hand in the case of crimes, etc. to prevent identification.

[Guest msclonly]

RE: Who gets thumb printed?

 

This should be of interest!

 

>AMERICAN JUSTICE.

>

>

>Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built

>into his shoe and tried to light it? Did you know his

>trial is over? Did you know he was sentenced? Did you

>see/hear any of the judge's comments on TV/Radio?

>Nope, didn't think so. Liberal media at work again.

>Everyone should hear what the judge had to say.

>

>Ruling by Judge William Young U.S. District Court

>Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if

>he had anything to say.

>

>His response: After admitting his guilt to the court

>for the record, Reid also admitted his "allegiance to

>Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of

>Allah," defiantly stated "I think I ought not

>apologize for my actions," and told the court "I am at

>war with your country."

>

>Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below,

>a stinging condemnation of Reid in particular and

>terrorists in general. January 30, 2003 United States

>v Reid.

>

>Judge Young:

>

>"Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the

>Court imposes upon you. On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court

>sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the

>United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and

>7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on

>each count, the sentence on each count to run

>consecutive with the other.

>That's 80 years.

>

>On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30

>years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed. The

>Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine

>of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million. The

>Court accepts the government's recommendation with

>respect to restitution and orders restitution in the

>amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to

>American Airlines. The Court imposes upon you the $800

>special assessment. The Court imposes upon you five

>years supervised release simply because the law

>requires it. But the life sentences are real life

>sentences so I need go no further. This is the

>sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a

>fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.

>

>Let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you

>or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We

>are Americans. We have been through the fire before.

>There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to

>everyone with the utmost respect.

>

>Here in this court, here we deal with individuals as

>individuals, and care for individuals as individuals.

>As human beings, we reach out for justice. You are

>not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are

>not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist.

>

>To give you that reference, to call you a soldier,

>gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the

>officers of government who do it or your attorney who

>does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a

>terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We

>do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents

>with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and

>bring them to justice. So war talk is way out of line

>in this court.

>

>You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're

>no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A

>species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted

>murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago

>had it right when you first were taken off that plane

>and into custody and you wondered where the press and

>where the TV crews were, and he said you're no big

>deal. You're no big deal.

>

>What your counsel, what your able counsel and what the

>equally able United States attorneys have grappled

>with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried

>to grapple with, is why you did something so

>horrific. What was it that led you here to this

>courtroom today? I have listened respectfully to what

>you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart

>and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led

>you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty

>of doing. And I have an answer for you. It may not

>satisfy you. But as I search this entire record, it

>comes as close to understanding as I know.

>

>It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most

>precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual

>freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose,

>to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe

>as we

>individually choose.

>

>Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom.

>They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It

>is because we prize individual freedom so much that

>you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that

>everyone can see, truly see that justice is

>administered fairly, individually, and discretely.

>

>It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are

>striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed

>appeals, will go on in their representation of you

>before other judges. We are about it. Because we all

>know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the

>measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though.

>It is yet true that we will bear any burden, pay any

>price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this

>courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to

>long remember what you or I say here. Day after

>tomorrow it will be forgotten. But this, however,

>will long endure.

>

>Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across

>America, the American people will gather to see that

>justice, individual justice, justice, not war,

>individual justice is in fact

>being done.

>

>The very President of the United States through his

>officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out

>evidence on which specific matters can be judged, and

>juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that

>evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine

>our sense of justice.

>

>See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United

>States of America. That flag will fly there long after

>this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom.

>You know it always will. Custody, Mr. Officer. Stand

>him down."

>

>So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on

>our TV sets? We need more judges like Judge Young, but

>that's another subject.

>

>Pass this around. Everyone should and needs to hear

>what this fine judge had to say.

>

>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

>__________________________________

>Do you Yahoo!?

>Yahoo! Hotjobs:

[Guest Valleyman]

An article on the website of the newspaper FOLHA DE SÃO PAULO reported that the mayor of Rio believes that the new rules will hurt Rio’s economy. The city of Rio has intervened in the legal proceedings in an attempt to overturn the order of the judge imposing the fingerprinting requirement. The argument made by the Rio government in this appeal is that while Brazil requires reciprocity between its procedures and those imposed by other countries on Brazilian citizens, the new procedures are not reciprocal since “in the United States Brazilians are identified in seconds while here (in Brazil) the process takes hours”. The local Chamber of Commerce has joined with the city government in this legal action.

 

It will be interesting to see if this appeal is successful.

[BillyZ]

RE: Who gets thumb printed?

 

I don't think that Tinman was actually disagreeing

with my observation that citizens from poor nations

are *disproportionately* more likely to ignore legal

niceties in their understandable drive to find greater

economic freedom.

 

More disturbing is Tinman's foundational argument

that most American citizens have no standing to be

concerned about illegal entry into the U.S. (since

the rules were easier in the past) and that such

concerns in an age of terrorism are "laughable"!

 

Let's see, our ancestors grew crops and operated

businesses without environmental regulations, so,

using Tinman's logic, it is laughable for us to

want new policies to protect the environment today.

[+ Axiom2001]

Please, please, please-- girls! Read the thread-bearer's last few sentences. He stated that he wanted to forewarn us visitors as to what to expect when entering Brasil in regard to being fingerprinted.

 

I was astonished as to what his foretelling generated; I was also perplexed by what his friend reported; it seemed rather dramatic to me--making such a fuss about the water and the paper and the lingering on of the grease! I found this to be rather PETTY to say the least!

I was about to cite as Tri mentioned-- Bring your own towelettes and wipes-- perhaps Lysol or Clorox wipes or something else! (I abhor it when I go into some restaurants in the US (3-4 star ones) and there is NO hot water. I become annoy about this for health reasons!)

 

I also am astute regarding the political implications; I am definitely not oblivious and overlooking them. ...just surprised, as mentioned previously about all of these lengthy (political/social) responses!

Now, guys-- start reporting about those fab men in Brasil!

[trilingual]

> The flaw in his

>dissertation, that finger printing only duplicates what we

>already know about the person from his passport is faulty.

>

>The fingerprinting is TOO prove the person IS the person named

>in the passport, and is not an assummed FALSE identity!

>Pasports and other papers can be fabricated, but fingerprints

>can not. Too many have assumed identities.

 

Sorry, kiddo, but there's no flaw. The fingerprinting can't prove anything about the person entering the U.S., because we have no database of fingerprints of all foreign citizens of poor, "non-white" countries against which to compare the fingerprint taken at entry. The new U.S. visa system is a much more effective screening method, because it incorporates a photo and machine-readable information about the bearer directly into the visa itself. That makes it easy for an immigration officer to determine if the bearer of the passport and visa are the same person standing in front of them. It also makes falsification more difficult, because if a passport with a U.S. visa is stolen, the thief would have to change not just the main passport picture but also the one in the visa, and that would be very difficult to do because it's computer generated and not an actual old-fashioned photo. Obviously, if the two photos don't match, that raises a red-flag at immigration!

 

The flaw continues to be our willful refusal to effectively identify people entering from the rich, mostly white countries whose nationals don't require visas to enter the U.S. As someone else pointed out, Richard Reid entered on a British passport, and Europe is full of Osama sympathizers, many of whom hold European passports. Since they don't require a visa to enter the U.S., they don't undergo the exhaustive screening someone from, say, Brazil experiences when they apply for a U.S. visitor's visa. They also don't get checked against anything very effective when the board the plane, or when they arrive in the U.S. (Of course, there is a computerized U.S. "watch" list, but it's hardly complete and it seems best at creating hassles for people who have names similar to those of suspected terrorists.) I don't know what, exactly, would be a real solution to the problem of identifying people who enter from visa waiver countries, but the current system accomplishes nothing at all and just angers and humiliates people from countries like Brazil which haven't been sources of terrorism.

[Guest tinman]

RE: Who gets thumb printed?

 

>I don't think that Tinman was actually disagreeing

>with my observation that citizens from poor nations

>are *disproportionately* more likely to ignore legal

>niceties in their understandable drive to find greater

>economic freedom.

 

Yes, in fact, I am disputing that. I agree with reciprocity in this area because of the hypocrisy that permits business "travellers" from rich countries to regularly violate the terms of their tourist visas in the third world al the while screaming about "illegal" immigration at home. I am fairly convinced that if most developing countries adopted the same tough immigration policies as their wealthier cousins, there would be a lot of Americans, Canadians, French and Germans going home.

[trilingual]

RE: Latest Developments

 

Today's Brazilian papers report that on Monday the government is going to issue a policy on security measures for identifying entering foreigners. It will be based on reciprocity (which is an enormous bugaboo for Brazil, for some reason) so it's likely that Americans will continue to be fingerprinted and photographed unless and until Brazil and the U.S. reach some agreement on acceptable reciprocal treatment for Brazilian visitors to the U.S.

 

Meanwhile, the news also reports that equipment similar to that used in the U.S. to take digital fingerprints will be installed at the main airports and should be in operation on Monday, if all goes well. So the process should be much easier and faster than it has been, thanks to the improvised nature of things since that judge ordered the fingerprinting to start.

 

Also, it looks like the federal government will appeal the decision, because of the intrusion by the judiciary into a constutional prerogative of the executive and legislative brances. But the results of that will take a while.

 

Don't touch that dial!!!

[BillyZ]

RE: Who gets thumb printed?

 

"A lot" would be going home? Maybe some,

but very "disproportionately" the violators

are (understandably) from poor countries.

 

In any event, Tinman believes it is "laughable"

for most American citizens to voice objections

to illegal entry into the U.S.! Adios.

[imrthr]

RE: Latest Developments

 

>Today's Brazilian papers report that on Monday the government

>is going to issue a policy on security measures for

>- - - - - - >

>Meanwhile, the news also reports that equipment similar to

>that used in the U.S. to take digital fingerprints will be

>installed at the main airports and should be in operation on

>Monday - - - - -

 

Thanks, Tri, for your onsite update.

 

Those of us who travel to Brazil appreciate your informative posts on so many different issues, particularly your reports about Brazil's new immigration policy targeted at American visitors.

 

Among other things, we who visit Brazil are concerned about the personal treatment we will encounter upon entering Brazil, e.g., photos, fingerprints and needless long lines while waiting to clear immigration there.

 

Considering the daily worldwide news coverage of Brazil's retaliation, I am pleased that there is this forum wherein this matter (and other matters) can be discussed. I know that other readers realize the value of this board.

 

In view of the foregoing discussion, I was surprised to read the above complaint stating "- - - all of these lengthy (political/social) responses! Now, guys-- start reporting about those fab men in Brasil!"

[Big Daddy]

RE: Latest Developments

 

The following is an article which appeared in todays NY Times. It is very intereting that the discussion has now reached almost to the highest level's of each government. So far, the issue has only gotten to Dubya. We will know that it really is a serious issue when de facto President (Vice-President) Dick "there is not an oil company I do not love" Cheney gets it.

 

One thing no one semes to notice. How many flights from Brazil were delayed or canceled due to terrorist worries in the last month. How many a day were delayed or canceled in Great Britain or France in the same period. Also, we never hear of Al Quida cells in Brazil or Thailand, but there were and most certainly still are very active, very nasty men and women, who want to kill all Westerner's, not just American's, and they are in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Belgium, Holland etc. All these people have ready access, no hassel, entrance into the US. Hey, we may be right in saying we can do whatever we want but the Brazilian's have just as much right to do whatever they want. Even if it means exposing American policy for what it is discrimintory. If it only takes two seconds, then use the procedure for EVERYONE that enters this country.

 

U.S. and Brazil Fingerprinting: Is It Getting Out of Hand?

By LARRY ROHTER

 

Published: January 10, 2004

 

 

IO DE JANEIRO, Jan. 9 — With Brazil and the United States holding fast to their insistence on photographing and fingerprinting visitors from the other country, what began as a minor dispute last week is now threatening to sour relations between the two countries, the most populous in the Western Hemisphere.

 

The dispute grew out of a security program the United States began this week, which applies to all foreigners entering the country who are required to have visas. Comparing the American action to "the worst horrors committed by the Nazis," a judge in a remote interior state ordered that all Americans arriving in Brazil be subjected to the same treatment.

 

Judging by radio call-in programs and newspaper columns and letters to the editor, the measure has proved popular here, with Brazilians praising their government for standing up to Washington. But that sentiment makes it politically costly for President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a left-leaning former labor leader who took office last year, to cede to Washington's insistence the program be curtailed.

 

"The barriers to American visitors erected at ports and airports have served thus far to inflate the national ego," O Globo, the principal daily here, cautioned in an editorial today. "But with the complaints of Secretary Colin Powell and the tension in contacts between the Foreign Ministry and Washington, this could take on the dimensions of an undesired diplomatic crisis."

 

Initially, the United States appeared indifferent to the Brazilian action. But on Wednesday, Washington's tone hardened, with the State Department spokesman, Richard A. Boucher, noting that the American procedure took "just seconds," compared with delays of up to nine hours for some Americans arriving here, and suggesting that the Brazilian policy was purposely discriminatory. "It's not being applied to all people the way our system is," Mr. Boucher said. "We regret the way in which the new procedures have suddenly been put into place that single out U.S. citizens for exceptional treatment."

 

Brazilian diplomats and government officials are exempted from the American inspection program. In contrast, embassy staff members said, United States diplomats here have been photographed and fingerprinted even after presenting their diplomatic passports, and even a visiting senator, Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican, was forced to comply with the procedure.

 

Mr. Boucher's complaints were followed by a telephone call by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to his Brazilian counterpart, Celso Amorim. Officials of both governments said the focus of the conversation was the meeting of Western Hemisphere heads of state in Mexico next week. But they added that the fingerprinting dispute was also discussed and was likely to be addressed again when President Bush and Mr. da Silva meet next week.

 

In a statement Wednesday, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry said it was seeking to "assure proper treatment" for its citizens arriving in the United States and invoked the principle of reciprocity, which it said was a "basic element of international relations." On Thursday, Mr. Amorim told reporters that Brazil had grounds to complain of discrimination because "27 countries are exempt from this measure" and Brazil deserved to be among them.

 

The United States has identified the border region where Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay come together as a haven for Islamic terrorists. There is also a flourishing traffic in counterfeit and contraband passports; on Wednesday, for instance, a Brazilian police officer about to board a plane in São Paulo was arrested with 36 blank Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Mexican passports.

 

Brazilian officials, however, have contested American warnings about that situation and maintain that their country does not confront any threat of terrorism. Brazil's critics here said that would seem to eliminate any need to build files on American tourists. But federal police officials say fingerprinting is necessary because American visitors could be involved in the prostitution of children or wildlife smuggling.

 

The new Brazilian policy has already begun to affect tourism from the United States. According to the tourist association here in the city that is the primary destination of the more than 600,000 American tourists who visit Brazil each year, an American corporation canceled an excursion for 240 of its employees, and cruise ship and air charter lines are thinking of doing the same.

 

The mayor of Rio, César Maia, this week appealed the original court ruling, calling the new policy "infantile." But a judge here turned down his request, saying she lacked the legal authority to revoke the decision of a judge in another state.

 

The federal government, which does have the power to challenge the policy for a limited time, has not yet filed suit asking that the judge's ruling be overturned. In remarks to Brazilian reporters on Thursday, Mr. Amorim said that such a step should properly occur "within an assemblage of concepts that will permit better treatment for Brazilians in the United States."

[Guest msclonly]

RE: Latest Developments

 

It would really be wise for the one Judge to be concerned about the terrorists entering the country, that are not handled in the same manner, they are treating the Americans! Enough said!;(