Slashdot Mirror
EU Plans to Require Biometrics for Visitors
bushwhacker2000 writes to tell us that the EU may soon be requiring travelers to provide biometric data before crossing into Europe. They are trying to soften the blow by offering "streamlined" services for frequent travelers but the end result seems the same. "The proposals, contained in draft documents examined by the International Herald Tribune and scheduled to go to the European Commission on Wednesday, were designed to bring the EU visa regime into line with a new era in which passports include biometric data. The commission, the EU executive, argues that migratory pressure, organized crime and terrorism are obvious challenges to the Union and that the bloc's border and visa policy needs to be brought up to date."
I've just arrived in Japan, which has - following pressure from the US - introduced fingerprinting at the border for all foreigners (including those with residence rights, not just visitors). While the process was relatively smooth (put your index fingers on a little machine), it's been my first contact with the world of paranoid "anti-terrorist" biometrics and for me marks the end of an era where international travel has been an expression of freedom.
I think that a lot of people (myself included) who have problems with these "intrusive programs" aren't dealing with the realities of the situations that they are implemented to deal with. We're all worried about these frightful "what if" scenarios. We don't realize that there are some situations in which "intrusive" tactics are required. For example I do some community service in Long Beach, CA. The place where I do community service is a "very bad" neighborhood. The police are actively doing what they can to deal with the problems (drug dealing, auto burglaries, gang intimidation, etc.) Part of what the police do is they stop anybody who they see riding around on bikes. They stop the people to figure out who they are and what they are doing in the neighborhood. On one hand, doing so is probably a violation of some "inherent rights." On the other hand, the police are doing what they need to do to reduce the number of convincted criminals running around the neighborhood.
I don't really buy into the whole War on Terror crap that is being shoved down our throats because I am well read enough and educated enough to realize that our government created al Qaeda and our government actively supports governments that oppress their people to the point where they become "terrorists." So although "terrorist" might not be a good label to put on freedom fighters actively resisting the new world order, the label definitely does fit some organizations that are terrorizing communities right now, right here in the United States. Organizations like MS13, the Mexican mafia, etc.
Not exactly European Union. It says Schengen. That includes Switzerland. So Switzerland with all of its anonymous banking is going to require biometric data for people leaving and coming to the country? Why do I not think this will happen?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Some people say immigration is bad because it takes jobs away from the the natives. Migration control programmes such as those discussed are very often fuelled by such fears.
In a healthy free market economy, jobs are held by those who can contribute more to the economy for the least cost. It has been my observation that some people, once achieving some comfortable and secure lifestyle, stop innovating and become lazy sluggards, who, even if they spend 8-10 or more hours "at work", they produce little or no real tangible economic value. PHBs are a good example: While the economic contribution of a good manager is to provide sound planning and organisational design, PHBs merely walk around the office carrying a cup of tea, literally doing nothing. In theory, their contribution could become visible someday in a department or company crisis when a decision would be crucial, but my experience tells me that most PHBs would be unable to respond to any crisis in any intelligent way, and most of them stay employed thanks to connections and nepotism. The end result for the economy is great waste, inefficiency, lack of skills, and the development of a passive approach to life which hinders entrepreneurship, initiative, and innovation.
In such an economy, where a great number of people have learnt to live their life without earning it with their ability, thanks to nepotism, status, various social structures, etc, the appearance of a few migrants can have positive effects from an economic point of view: Migrants come, some of them having useful skills, and they renovate the economy. When employers notice that the migrants have real skills and are willing to work for lower wages, they will eventually fire the lazy sluggards and force them to take a more active approach to life and learn new skills, ie to become again actively useful in the economy. In this way, migrants help counterbalance the tendency of many humans to stop innovating once they achieve some security.
Knowing this, a certain number of migrants is not only tolerable but in fact should be highly wanted and desirable, as they have a legitimate and useful economic role to play in our economies (to wake up our lazy fellows). And it is not only highly educated migrants that should be in demand: Migrants with low education should be welcome as well, as they often help to fill gaps in an economy whose members increasingly move towards the service sector and higher-paying jobs.
There are, of course, some dangers from the influx of huge numbers of migrants. One danger is sociological and has its basis in animal behaviour: You can see that, for example, ants are aggressive towards ants from different colonies. Similarly, humans in general do have some passive aggressiveness hidden somewhere in their mind towards persons from different nations. There is, of course, some biological basis for this, as it helps teams of humans (tribes) secure resources and maintain family lineages. But in the modern era, with our developed economies and globalised communications, we need not worry so much about these concerns that belong to the prehistory eras. What we should do is to take care to not allow this passive subconscious aggressiveness become an activated state of mind and infect the conscious mind. This can happen to most people, without them realising it, when great numbers of migrants come into a country and interact with the locals. Seeing one migrant does not raise xenophobic tendencies, but suddenly seeing a thousand migrants out of your door may cause your subconscious tribal feelings to be activated and projected to the consciousness in a variety of ways (xenophobia, racism, economic protectionism, security paranoia, etc). When this happens to the majority of a native population, the results can be disastrous. We have seen it in history and such mistakes should not be repeated by civilised people.
So, how can we ensure that immigration results in positive economic contributions without triggering sociological problems?