Cancer Patient Held At Airport For Missing Fingerprints

A 62-year-old man visiting his relatives in the US was held for four hours by immigration officials after they could not detect his fingerprints because of a cancer drug he was taking. The man was prescribed capecitabine, a drug used to treat cancers in the head, neck, breast, and stomach. Some of the drug's side-effects include chronic inflammation of the palms or soles of the feet, which can cause the skin to peel or bleed. "This can give rise to eradication of fingerprints with time," explained Tan Eng Huat, senior consultant in the medical oncology department at Singapore's National Cancer Center. "Theoretically, if you stop the drug, it will grow back, but details are scanty. No one knows the frequency of this occurrence among patients taking this drug and nobody knows how long a person must be on this drug before the loss of fingerprints," he added.

Comments

The scariest words in the English language

[XxtraLarGe]

We're from the government, and we're here to help you!

Re:The scariest words in the English language

[interkin3tic]

We're from the government, and we're here to help you!

Uh, what's that got to do with anything? When would that have been said during this exchange? I mean, customs officials don't say "we're from the government" and they DEFINITELY don't say "We're here to help you."

Re:The scariest words in the English language

[MadAhab]

Bullshit.

The scariest words in the English language are "I'm just doing my job." That doesn't sound so good in German either.

Besides, immigration officials aren't there to help anyone. Just ask the tourists who don't come to the US anymore.

Re:The scariest words in the English language

[Abcd1234]

What... you'd rather the US government got out of the business of border security? Wow. Even the craziest right-wing loonies admit that the government's job is to protect the borders...

Re:The scariest words in the English language

[Nutria]

In this case, why do they insist on fingerprints to identify someone?
Sure, they might want to know if the person they are holding already has a record.
If not, though, then certainly they are creating a new record, right?
So, gather retinal scans, voice prints, DNA samples, whatever.
Those will suffice if captured after doing something in the future.

Every international airport would have to

1. install retinal scanners,
2. install voice print analyzers,
3. have hundreds of mouth swabs on hand,
4. install uber-speed DNA analyzers, (can they even do it in the minutes needed?)
5. train the users to do it properly,
6. upgrade all the computers to add the new data types, and
7. new programming to use the new data.

And the billions of dollars to implement it.

All for a tiny percentage of the population.

Not to mention the HOWLS OF RAGE from privacy groups, the ACLU, the EU, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Instead of knee-jerk reacting about how stupid the US government is, think about what you just wrote.

Re:The scariest words in the English language

[sortius_nod]

The US government is stupid, but this is just a case of a specific person being stupid (both the official and the poster you replied to).

Fingerprinting everyone who enters your country is only valid when you've already deteriorated civil liberties beyond the point of no return. I don't think turning your country into a police state for the sake of being "safe" is a reasonable scenario. The bottom line is that US foreign policy put the US in its current position, so maybe changing this might ensure safety.

Wars on "terrorism" and clandestine activities involving your secret services aren't exactly on the road to positive foreign policy.

The more the US moves toward this police state (and police the world attitude), the more people will be wrongly detained at airports, boarders, hell, even in other countries. This does not reflect well at all for the US or US citizens.

Re:The scariest words in the English language

[sortius_nod]

So photographs are no longer valid?

I suppose we should all burn our passports and submit ourselves to chipping? Fingerprinting is not and never will be a valid form of identifying innocent civilians. The only people in my country that get fingerprinted are people who are charged with a crime, not innocent people entering the country (or, now as a newer article shows, leaving the country).

Gee, that doesn't sound like a police state at all.

What kind of brainlessness is this which asserts that "fingerprinting" == "making sure you are who you say you are"?

Re:The scariest words in the English language

[Randall311]

Everybody who requires a security clearance also must submit to fingerprinting. There are countless other valid reasons for fingerprinting as well. Why do you think that only people being charged with a crime are the ones that submit to fingerprinting? How is it any worse than having your picture taken for your passport? The only difference is that they now have something to tie back to you. This is not a police state.

just doing their job

[castironpigeon]

Why think when you can follow protocol?

Re:just doing their job

[Ceiynt]

Protocol, and current law, requires fingerprinting for incoming foreigners. I think DNA should be a good alternative if fingerprints are not available. I wonder what the protocol is for a double arm amputee. What if they had just said, "Oh well, you look sick and you won't do anything, so we'll let you in."
What if they find out he's on cancer drugs because he's some sort of commie biochem guy and is now sick from that. He's dying and wants to do damage to America. He blows up a school. Oh, well, after a few years they'll find he wasn't printed coming into the country. Parents of kids killed sue because protocol wasn't followed, allowing a dangerous wanted person in the country, just because he was sick.
Sickness does not beget special treatment. A plan B should be in place for this sort of thing.

Re:just doing their job

[darthwader]

Why not do both? Protocol is: get fingerprint. If you cannot get a fingerprint, then you should use your discretion and initiative, e.g.:
- carefully and thoroughly interview the visitor.
- understand and verify the person's reason for not having a fingerprint.
- understand why the person is visiting the country.
- determine whether this person is likely to be a risk or not.
- decide if the person should be allowed into the country despite the lack of fingerprints.

If the border guards didn't want to think, they would have just deported him right away. They were willing to think. They did think. They interviewed him, thought about what he said,possibly spent some time verifying what he said, maybe consulted other people, and in the end they decided he was an acceptable risk. The process took 4 hours. It seems reasonable to me.

I think this shows a system working perfectly. The normal case (over 99% of the time, I would guess) is a few seconds for a fingerprint. The exceptions are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with a thorough interview and careful consideration (not a stupid snap judgment).

Re:just doing their job

[geekoid]

When government officials detain you for whatever they want, and nobody thinks its a big deal, then truly, the terrorists have won.

Re:just doing their job

[AK Marc]

You are required to give fingerprints when you come to the US. The US is open and clear about that. This man entered the US without fingerprints. That would be roughly equivelent to a returning American without any identification. Would you plaster up "innocent American held for hours" or "idiot with no ID got what he deserved"? He traveled to the US missing a required item, fingerprints. That he was held for a short time (and yes, 4 hours is short when you are essentially in violation of US law, even with good reason) and released when his information could be checked out and verified. That's the system working. There are lots of things to complain about (like fingerprints being required in the first place) but to hold this up as an example of a failure of the system is absurd. To state that they held him for "no reason" is absurd. They had a good reason and held him no longer than necessary to address the issue.

Re:just doing their job

[Normal Dan]

What if

What if you trip and fall on a sharp corner and poke your eye out? We should ban sharp corners! What if you trip and fall and hit your head on a wall? We should pad all our walls. Or better yet, ban walking or moving about of any kind. We should all be bound to soft beds. What if your teenage child is sexually attracted to a classmate? We should ban children.

We could play what if all day, but the point is, you can't keep everyone safe from everything all the time. You have to ask what freedoms are worth giving up for what safeties. I for one would be willing to give up a lot of the "safety" gained from our security theater for the freedom to get on an airplane without taking off my shoes.

On a side note, didn't we used to belittle commie's for being a "show me your papers" kind of state?

Re:just doing their job

[Mr. Slippery]

He traveled to the US missing a required item, fingerprints.

Not at all. He gave them the fingerprints that he had. The fact that they were useless to ICE is not his fault.

Re:Best country in the world

[joebok]

Actually, yes:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2001/1125/cover.html

An alert border guard caught a guy trying to get across the border with a bunch of bomb stuff. This case with the finger prints doesn't sound like a case of anybody being "alert" - but for my money, training people to detect and investigate is far better than the ridiculous security theater we usually see - taking off shoes and having jars of plum jam confiscated.

Re:Can't be the first

[Khyber]

And here, ladies and gentleman, is a person that's NEVER done a fish fry or turkey deep fry.

Here sir, let me put your fingers NEAR this FOUR HUNDRED DEGREE HOT OIL.

Sorry if you get any spatters on yourself or if you burn yourself touching the frying basket where you shouldn't.

Re:This is utterly non-news!

[geekoid]

"The guy was screened routinely. "

THAT'S the problem.

Re:Technology-determined guilt or innocence

[QuoteMstr]

IANAL, but my understanding is that refusal laws apply only after an arrest. Refusal to take a roadside breathalyzer does, however, constitute probably cause for arrest. Once you are placed under arrest as a result of either refusing or failing a roadside breathalyzer, you are given an evidentiary test, using with a more reliable machine. Refusing this test is what triggers the refusal laws.

Again, IANAL, but it seems better to always refuse a test if you know you're going to fail. Failure to blow is a civil penalty. A DUI is a criminal conviction that can haunt you for the rest of your life.