[Zimphire]

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/...iccards_1.html

I mean if you wanted it.. cool.

But REQUIRED?

Heck, regular ID cards aren't required here.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/...iccards_1.html

I mean if you wanted it.. cool.

But REQUIRED?

Heck, regular ID cards aren't required here.

The US government has been demanding it of foreigners. Anyone entering the US since last September has to have a new passport with the new electronic data, has to be finger printed and photographed too. In response to that all nations including Americans will have to be data extremed soon.

All down to your terror training buddies upon high.

[Zimphire]

Ok Ronnie, but I can see making NEW Citizens have them. That actually makes sense. Esp with all the illegal aliens.

Still not the same.

Not even close.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ok Ronnie, but I can see making NEW Citizens have them. That actually makes sense. Esp with all the illegal aliens.

Still not the same.

Not the same? Europe doesn't have illegal aliens? Ten times more than the US. And if they get them everyone has to otherwise it's descrimination. Just put it down to a foreign policy that keeps many nations poor by exploiting them for their resources. If it wasn't so those aliens would rather stay home and work to make their own countries better.

Like thousands of others including the aliens have said, blame the big boys.

[Zimphire]

Ronnie for 1 they are requiring EVERYONE to have one.

2 it's a whole different type of card all together.


Or did you not see that?

Stop playing the strawman game BTW.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ronnie for 1 they are requiring EVERYONE to have one.

2 it's a whole different type of card all together.


Or did you not see that?

Stop playing the strawman game BTW.

Someone doesn't know how to read so I'll put them on ignore and go back to

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ronnie for 1 they are requiring EVERYONE to have one.

I agree, it is kinda creepy. You do know the US is proposing that all travelers entering the US, including American citizens, be required to have passports? I know this isn't even remotely similar, but requiring American travelers to have passports to re-enter the US is a step in a similar direction; a direction that may lead to a slippery slope.

For what it's worth, I don't disagree with the US passport proposal (I've always thought that Canadians should be required to have passports when crossing into the US and have always used a passport myself since it makes the crossing easier than when using a driver's license and birth certificate).

[James L]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
The US government has been demanding it of foreigners. Anyone entering the US since last September has to have a new passport with the new electronic data, has to be finger printed and photographed too. In response to that all nations including Americans will have to be data extremed soon.

All down to your terror training buddies upon high.

I have been in the US at least a half dozen times since Sept 2004 (NYC, San Francisco, etc), the most recently for Mac World in January, and I don't recall ever having to have anything more than my DL and birth certificate (though I use my passport as it is easier). I can't recall, but I don't remember ever doing any fingerprinting for my passport, and I don't ever recall getting photographed at the border either (though I did for my passport... is that what you mean)?

As a matter of fact, the last time I crossed the border into the US I was with an American, and I handed the US customs dude our passports (mine Canadian, my buddies American). He barely glanced at them, asked where we were headed, and said have fun driving through the Siskiyou.

...not the least bit secure actually. The same when I came back into Canada, too.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Well, the last time I entered the US the airport authority kept me behind for half an hour because I had a new British passport. They literally bullied me by repeating over and over again 'Have you always been British?' and 'Were you born in Britain?'. They asked the same two questions for half an hour because they suspected it might be a fake passport and that I was born in some 'terrorist axis of evil' country. I wasn't intimidated at all and gave them a piece of my mind. In the new US you're presumed guilty until proven innocent.

[nath]

Originally posted by James L:
I have been in the US at least a half dozen times since Sept 2004 (NYC, San Francisco, etc), the most recently for Mac World in January, and I don't recall ever having to have anything more than my DL and birth certificate (though I use my passport as it is easier). I can't recall, but I don't remember ever doing any fingerprinting for my passport, and I don't ever recall getting photographed at the border either (though I did for my passport... is that what you mean)?

As a matter of fact, the last time I crossed the border into the US I was with an American, and I handed the US customs dude our passports (mine Canadian, my buddies American). He barely glanced at them, asked where we were headed, and said have fun driving through the Siskiyou.

...not the least bit secure actually. The same when I came back into Canada, too.

That's surprising, I thought all US borders were biometrically controlled now. We were photographed and fingerprinted into Miami at Christmas. Nice way to start your honeymoon. Naturally I gave the camera my best 'terrist' grimace.

Having said that the Homeland Security goon was pretty polite and the resources they had laid on to do all the checking were incredible (we got through faster than we did at Heathrow and Montego Bay, neither of which had any security of note).

Still somewhat unhappy at the US government having my bio details on record. I'll fly direct next time and spend my money elsewhere.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Someone doesn't know how to read so I'll put them on ignore and go back to

How do you put yourself on ignore?

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ok Ronnie, but I can see making NEW Citizens have them. That actually makes sense. Esp with all the illegal aliens.

Still not the same.

Not even close.

This is a consequence of 9/11 and of illegal immigration. US visa regulations got ridiculously stupid. But that's another thread.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
This is a consequence of 9/11 and of illegal immigration. US visa regulations got ridiculously stupid. But that's another thread.

Indeed, not only is it another thread, it's really not that comparable.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Indeed, not only is it another thread, it's really not that comparable.

I'm against biometric identification in passports and visa. It is comparable, though, because biometric ids provide the same false sense of security as many other measures in the US' current visa regulations.

Why are all foreigners supposed to give their fingerprints when entering the US? What are they used for? Why are fingerprints a necessity when you know that by far the largest share of those people are not even suspected of a crime?

That said, I'm against biometric passports, but I'm also against biometric info in visa.

[Millennium]

This card is not the same thing as a passport, in that it is issued to citizens who must then carry them at all times. Neither of these is true of passports.

Dystopia, here we come.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I'm against biometric identification in passports and visa.

Why? A photo is "biometric identification" as well. An ID card is a document that proves your identity. Why should the proof be weak only?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
This card is not the same thing as a passport, in that it is issued to citizens who must then carry them at all times. Neither of these is true of passports.

Thank you.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Why? A photo is "biometric identification" as well. An ID card is a document that proves your identity. Why should the proof be weak only?

Invasion of privacy, anyone? Technically, you can put anything from just a picture to picture + fingerprints + dna in the new documents if you really want to.

What improvement in terms of security would we get if all store (additional) biometric data in our passports and visas? (For instance, one could embed the same picture which is shown in the passport and thus increase the security without invading privacy any further.)

And what is the price we pay? If we stick to fingerprints only, we end up with a database with all citizens' fingerprints registered (otherwise there is no point to the fingerprint data if you can't compare it to saved data). Movements of citizens could be traced back and reconstructed.

If you were even to include DNA, people would be able to check your parts of your medical status in a matter of seconds. Millions of people could be scanned just by the click of a button to connect them to a crime.

People could be scanned for `suspicious movements' (frequent travels across borders, whatever you want), and in this way, your privacy is violated.

[badidea]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Thank you.

Do I understand your "Thank you" correct in the way that you thought this was all about a new passport?

I am not really sure if it is the same in France as it is in Germany but here we have passports and ID cards (german: Personalausweis). You are not required to own a passport but everyone has to have and carry an ID card!
Last time I visited the US I realized how unknown ID cards are to US citizens because the bouncers at the bars didn't want to accept mine as proof for being 21.
The drivers license is usually not accepted as an ID in Germany!

ID on the left - passport on the right:

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Invasion of privacy, anyone? Technically, you can put anything from just a picture to picture + fingerprints + dna in the new documents if you really want to.

What improvement in terms of security would we get if all store (additional) biometric data in our passports and visas? (For instance, one could embed the same picture which is shown in the passport and thus increase the security without invading privacy any further.)

And what is the price we pay? If we stick to fingerprints only, we end up with a database with all citizens' fingerprints registered (otherwise there is no point to the fingerprint data if you can't compare it to saved data). Movements of citizens could be traced back and reconstructed.

If you were even to include DNA, people would be able to check your parts of your medical status in a matter of seconds. Millions of people could be scanned just by the click of a button to connect them to a crime.

People could be scanned for `suspicious movements' (frequent travels across borders, whatever you want), and in this way, your privacy is violated.

With respect to passports, you already have greatly diminished privacy interests when you cross a border as it is. Unless the countries you are leaving and entering have some agreement (such as within the EU), the border guards have the right to stop you, question you, search you, confiscate items that are prohibited, and certainly to record your entry and exit. This is because they ultimately have the right not to admit you at all. There simply is no "right" to enter a foreign country. All there is is a privilege to do so. That's a privilege that can be withdrawn or conditioned. (An exception is if there is a treaty right, such as within the EU).

All these new standards are is a means to greater protect border security. Once they are in place they will make it easier for legitimate travellers to cross, while at the same time make it harder for illegitimate travellers to do so. That is a perfectly proper goal. The alternative is either restricting border access for legitimate travellers, or giving up on the idea of making it hard for smugglers and terrorists to travel at will. Neither alternative is acceptable.

The rest of your concerns can be addressed by proper database security to make sure that the private information is only used by legitimate law enforcement officers for legitimate border security purposes.

The question is somewhat different if you are talking about an ID card that all citizens are required to carry in their own countries and could be penalized for not carrying. That is obviously a question for domestic law and traditions. It probably wouldn't be acceptable in the US from a legal standpoint. For example, if you had to show ID to cross state lines that would be an unconstitutional restriction on the right to travel within the US (there is no similar right with respect to international travel).

However, practically speaking, it is already pretty much a necessity to carry some form of ID in the US. There are just too many daily transactions that require one not to carry one. So it is theoretically voluntary, even if it is kind of universal.

[vmarks]

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...

All these new standards are is a means to greater protect border security. Once they are in place they will make it easier for legitimate travellers to cross, while at the same time make it harder for illegitimate travellers to do so. That is a perfectly proper goal. The alternative is either restricting border access for legitimate travellers, or giving up on the idea of making it hard for smugglers and terrorists to travel at will. Neither alternative is acceptable.

The rest of your concerns can be addressed by proper database security to make sure that the private information is only used by legitimate law enforcement officers for legitimate border security purposes.

...

Well, no, the questions here are not as easy as you may make it seem. And you assume that those measures do indeed increase security.

There was a big controversy (which in my opinion has not been satisfactory resolved, but that's another matter) about requiring Europe to hand over passenger lists of all flights to the US. European (and in case of Germany also national law) requires that certain rules are kept when handling information like this. In particular, handing over the data to the US is a violation to own laws and a violation of responsibility towards its own citizens.

So it's not entirely a US matter.

Furthermore, to the second point, from what I have seen (three cases of problems with US customs among friends/family within the last two, three months, one of them involving a US citizen), the new regulations make it far more bureaucratical to apply and obtain a visa, but do not improve security at all. (Unless you want me to go into detail, I won't do so, because the discussion is about biometrically enhanced ids.)

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by vmarks:
http://papersplease.org/hiibel/

The link doesn't work for me.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
The link doesn't work for me.

Works for me. A guy (drunken or mentally disturbed) who was in a fight refuses to show ID to the police "I'm not showing you. Take me to jail!" then is arrested. It's disgusting what the police can do in America. They have no respect for human rights.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Well, no, the questions here are not as easy as you may make it seem. And you assume that those measures do indeed increase security.

There was a big controversy (which in my opinion has not been satisfactory resolved, but that's another matter) about requiring Europe to hand over passenger lists of all flights to the US. European (and in case of Germany also national law) requires that certain rules are kept when handling information like this. In particular, handing over the data to the US is a violation to own laws and a violation of responsibility towards its own citizens.

So it's not entirely a US matter.

No, that is entirely a US matter. You are talking about immigration into the US. The US (or any country for that matter) is free to impose whatever condition it wants on that entry. The law of a foreign country has nothing to do with it.

Suppose the US passed a law that said all Americans must be armed with guns when flying outside the US. Would you say that Germany couldn't still ban the entry of passengers carrying firearms into Germany? Would American law trump German immigration law in that situation? If not, why would you think that German law should trump American immigration law on the passenger list issue?

In both cases, you have the same choice. You can either meet the standards of the country you are trying to enter, or don't enter.

[badidea]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Works for me. A guy (drunken or mentally disturbed) who was in a fight refuses to show ID to the police "I'm not showing you. Take me to jail!" then is arrested. It's disgusting what the police can do in America. They have no respect for human rights.

Same thing happens in Germany if you don't show your ID (well, not really jail but you don't get to walk home either)!

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by badidea:
Same thing happens in Germany if you don't show your ID (well, not really jail but you don't get to walk home either)!

I was being sarcastic obviously.

[badidea]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
...obviously.

not for me, obviously

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I'm against biometric identification in passports and visa. It is comparable, though, because biometric ids provide the same false sense of security as many other measures in the US' current visa regulations.

Why are all foreigners supposed to give their fingerprints when entering the US? What are they used for? Why are fingerprints a necessity when you know that by far the largest share of those people are not even suspected of a crime?

That said, I'm against biometric passports, but I'm also against biometric info in visa.

I for one think having fingerprints and other forms of unique identification on hand is a good thing. Think about this, if all those tourists in Indonesia killed by the tsunami had their fingerprints encoded in a digital passport the identification process would have been much easier. Granted, this assumes that people had ID on them when they were found. But even if that wasn't the case the government would have the record of their fingerprints from transiting through Customs.

Having the government hold certain types of data--in this case digital photos and fingerprint records--is not in and of itself a bad thing. It's what the government chooses to do with that data that has the potential to be harmful. Just like tax records. The IRS knows EVERYTHING about what eveyrbody makes. When it was revealed that staff were perusing the records of politicians

I for one would like to see a nationalized ID system in this country--preferably integrated into the state driver's license system--that contains fingerprints and critical health data. Imagine the life-saving potential if every person carried on themselves their finger-prints and any critical health information.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
However, practically speaking, it is already pretty much a necessity to carry some form of ID in the US. There are just too many daily transactions that require one not to carry one. So it is theoretically voluntary, even if it is kind of universal.

True. I was amazed to be asked for ID in the Miami Applestore when I paid for some stuff on VISA. Never had that anywhere in Europe.

I didn't have any, but in the end they kind of accepted my confused Englishness as a form of ID...

[vmarks]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Works for me. A guy (drunken or mentally disturbed) who was in a fight refuses to show ID to the police "I'm not showing you. Take me to jail!" then is arrested. It's disgusting what the police can do in America. They have no respect for human rights.

not drunken, not mentally disturbed, simply a father who was having an argument with his daughter, he pulled off the side of the road and the police started asking him for ID when he hadn't done anything illegal. He refused and challenged them to arrest him. If you watch the officer's video, you can see his daughter get upset when they do.

Which goes to show that if you don't carry or don't present ID on demand in the US, the police can arrest you. Case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by vmarks:
not drunken, not mentally disturbed, simply a father who was having an argument with his daughter.

I have seen the video. He appeared to be under the influence of drugs or mental disturbance to me.

Which goes to show that if you don't carry or don't present ID on demand in the US, the police can arrest you.

I think it shows more that if you behave like an ass towards a police officer who investigates a fight you can get arrested. Regardless of ID or not.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

No, that is entirely a US matter. You are talking about immigration into the US. The US (or any country for that matter) is free to impose whatever condition it wants on that entry. The law of a foreign country has nothing to do with it.

Suppose the US passed a law that said all Americans must be armed with guns when flying outside the US. Would you say that Germany couldn't still ban the entry of passengers carrying firearms into Germany? Would American law trump German immigration law in that situation? If not, why would you think that German law should trump American immigration law on the passenger list issue?

In both cases, you have the same choice. You can either meet the standards of the country you are trying to enter, or don't enter.

No, again, it's not. My country's (or the EU's) responsibilities do not stop when I cross a border.

Just think of your main counter argument when we were discussing the ICJ in Den Haag. You argued that the US cannot give up certain rights to protect its citizens -- it's the same here. But practically, it's not possible to stop all passenger traffic between the EU and the US. Hence the foul compromise of the EU to `advise' the airlines to hand over the passenger lists, but not force them to. It was just gunboat diplomacy.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I for one think having fingerprints and other forms of unique identification on hand is a good thing. Think about this, if all those tourists in Indonesia killed by the tsunami had their fingerprints encoded in a digital passport the identification process would have been much easier. Granted, this assumes that people had ID on them when they were found. But even if that wasn't the case the government would have the record of their fingerprints from transiting through Customs.

Having the government hold certain types of data--in this case digital photos and fingerprint records--is not in and of itself a bad thing. It's what the government chooses to do with that data that has the potential to be harmful. Just like tax records. The IRS knows EVERYTHING about what eveyrbody makes. When it was revealed that staff were perusing the records of politicians

I for one would like to see a nationalized ID system in this country--preferably integrated into the state driver's license system--that contains fingerprints and critical health data. Imagine the life-saving potential if every person carried on themselves their finger-prints and any critical health information.

In Germany we have a national ID and I think it is generally a good thing. It does not require you to have a driver's licence and it is also more secure. At least my US driver's licence (stolen ) was a piece of plastic. I saw them printing that thing, no security whatsoever.

I agree with you about the benefits, but the problem is once so much data is accumulated, there is a temptation to actually use it for other purposes, implicating thousands of innocent people. Right after 9/11, there was a big police operation in Germany, where they scanned the records of tens of thousands of foreign students. You know what the result was? Zero. AFAIK there was one trial, but it was a very weak one. On the other hand, the privacy of all others was violated for basically nothing. Hence my polite no thank you.

[Lazytime]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/...iccards_1.html

I mean if you wanted it.. cool.

But REQUIRED?

Heck, regular ID cards aren't required here.

Dont worry soon enough it will happen

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I agree with you about the benefits, but the problem is once so much data is accumulated, there is a temptation to actually use it for other purposes, implicating thousands of innocent people.

Of course data should not be accumulated. I agree with you that crime records, tax records, health records, credit card payments, phone calls etc. pp. should never be held in one central database, but in separated ones.

But that has nothing to do with a biometric datum on the ID card. Such a biometric datum will only prove the identity of the owner to a much better degree than the picture and the signature do. And that's the purpose of the ID card.
If it would tell more (like a DNA sample large enough to tell genetic diseases) it would be inept for the purpose of identifying.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

No, again, it's not. My country's (or the EU's) responsibilities do not stop when I cross a border.

Just think of your main counter argument when we were discussing the ICJ in Den Haag. You argued that the US cannot give up certain rights to protect its citizens -- it's the same here. But practically, it's not possible to stop all passenger traffic between the EU and the US. Hence the foul compromise of the EU to `advise' the airlines to hand over the passenger lists, but not force them to. It was just gunboat diplomacy.

It is possible for your governments to forbid you to come to the US. Governments erect travel bans all the time if they feel strongly enough about the issue. For example, the travel ban on US citizens to Cuba.

What you are describing is your resentment that your need for entry into the US was less than your need to enforce an internal law. Well, tough. Your laws stop at your borders. When you enter the borders of another country, you have to follow that country's laws.

It is true that as a European citizen, you are also responsible to your own government to continue to follow your country's laws over you. But that does not obligate any other country to amend its laws to make things easier on you. If your government puts you in an impossible situation, that is between you and your government. You can either choose to break your own laws, or you can choose to follow them and not go to the US. It's your call. Or, of course, you can do what happened -- get the two governments to resolve the matter diplomatically.

This is exactly like my hypothetical where the US government requires it's citizens to carry guns when travelling abroad. No matter what the US government tells its citizens, that does not obligate other countries to change their laws to suit the US government. Thus, Germany wouldn't be obligated to allow armed Americans through its borders. (This hypothetical is actually based on a real situation I encountered. The US government required me to carry a gun for my job. When we wanted to go to Holland, the Dutch government refused to let me carry a firearm, even though my government told me to carry one. Guess what? Holland won).

You basically seem to think that Europeans get to tell the entire world what to do in their countries. That is not the way it works. Your analogy to the ICC is therefore completely backwards. The objection to the ICC is partly that it doesn't recognize sovereignty. Nor, apparently, do you.

[blue storm 1337]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

It is possible for your governments to forbid you to come to the US. Governments erect travel bans all the time if they feel strongly enough about the issue. For example, the travel ban on US citizens to Cuba.

What you are describing is your resentment that your need for entry into the US was less than your need to enforce an internal law. Well, tough. Your laws stop at your borders. When you enter the borders of another country, you have to follow that country's laws.

It is true that as a European citizen, you are also responsible to your own government to continue to follow your country's laws over you. But that does not obligate any other country to amend its laws to make things easier on you. If your government puts you in an impossible situation, that is between you and your government. You can either choose to break your own laws, or you can choose to follow them and not go to the US. It's your call.

This is exactly like my hypothetical where the US government requires it's citizens to carry guns when travelling abroad. No matter what the US government tells its citizens, that does not obligate other countries to change their laws to suit the US government. Thus, Germany wouldn't be obligated to allow armed Americans through its borders. (This hypothetical is actually based on a real situation I encountered. The US government required me to carry a gun for my job. When we wanted to go to Holland, the Dutch government refused to let me carry a firearm, even though my government told me to carry one. Guess what? Holland won).

You basically seem to think that Europeans get to tell the entire world what to do in their countries. That is not the way it works. Your analogy to the ICC is therefore completely backwards. The objection to the ICC is partly that it doesn't recognize sovereignty. Nor, apparently, do you.

WELL ISn'T THaT SOmethingT#E!

[Wiskedjak]

Creepy indeed
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67192,00.html

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

It is possible for your governments to forbid you to come to the US. Governments erect travel bans all the time if they feel strongly enough about the issue. For example, the travel ban on US citizens to Cuba.

...

You're taking my example backwards. The EU was interested in continuing the obvious, and the EU gave in to the demands, breaking their own standards.

To use your example: it's like the US not requiring you to carry a gun anymore so you can cross the Dutch border. Just that the repercussions in this case are far more severe.

Although I do have a feeling about this issue, you are still living in the illusion that everything Europe does is just because their pride is hurt. It is the missing reciprocity that I find very offensive -- whenever it comes to US citizens, a different set of rules applies, international institutions are not supported consistently, etc. When other countries demand the same thing for their citizens (respect for privacy), the US suddenly has no understanding whatsoever for others' needs. Countries are pressured, even to the point where they violate their own laws (or in Japan's case, their constitution).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

You're taking my example backwards. The EU was interested in continuing the obvious, and the EU gave in to the demands, breaking their own standards.

To use your example: it's like the US not requiring you to carry a gun anymore so you can cross the Dutch border. Just that the repercussions in this case are far more severe.

You are misunderstanding. The EU wasn't required to change its law within Europe. That would of course be an imposition. It's just that if it wanted to continue to send aircraft or its citizens into the US, it had to remove a conflict between its domestic laws, and the domestic laws of the US. That is because within the US domestic US law governs. People crossing into the US have to abide by US border controls.

All the EU had to do to resolve the conflict is to not enforce its rule with respect to aircraft crossing the US border. It's just like the Army telling me that since I was crossing into the Netherlands, I didn't have to carry my gun that day (which is what it in fact did). Or, of course, you could refuse to compromise in which case the EU's citizens could not fly to America. None of this has any effect on EU laws within the EU.

What you are in effect demanding is a special exception to US immigration laws. That is a demand for a change to US domestic law as it applies within the US. That is unacceptable, just as it would have been unacceptable for the US to demand the Netherlands let me carry my firearm across the Dutch border into the Netherlands.

As you say, this is a reciprocity issue, but I'm afraid it is the EU that wasn't respecting reciprocity. Every country controls its own borders. Other countries do not get to tell it what it may do to control its own borders. Not even Europeans.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You are misunderstanding. The EU wasn't required to change its law within Europe. That would of course be an imposition. It's just that if it wanted to continue to send aircraft or its citizens into the US, it had to remove a conflict between its domestic laws, and the domestic laws of the US. That is because within the US domestic US law governs. People crossing into the US have to abide by US border controls.

...

They didn't change the law, the EU is breaking its own laws.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

As you say, this is a reciprocity issue, but I'm afraid it is the EU that wasn't respecting reciprocity. Every country controls its own borders. Other countries do not get to tell it what it may do to control its own borders. Not even Europeans.

Not true. First of all, whether I like it or not, the EU basically gave in to the US' demands.

Furthermore, you don't need to be patronizing by singling out old Europe.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

They didn't change the law, the EU is breaking its own laws.

It's not our concern how they resolve their problem.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

It's not our concern how they resolve their problem.

Talk about non-reciprocity and arrogance.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Talk about non-reciprocity and arrogance.

How so? The internal governance of the EU is a matter for the EU and its member states. It's none of the US' business.

That being so, DO NOT attempt to blame the decision of the EU on the US. You can't tell us to respect your independence, and then at the same time attempt to blame your decisions on the US.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Not true. First of all, whether I like it or not, the EU basically gave in to the US' demands.

Furthermore, you don't need to be patronizing by singling out old Europe.

The issue was that EU law would have caused EU citizens to violate US law in the United States. European citizens do not have carte blanche to break American laws. If you choose to come here, obey US laws.

All Europe did was make the proper adjustment so that its own laws wouldn't put Europeans in the position of breaking US law, or being rufused entry to the US.

I'm not patronizing you, I'm just stunned that you don't get it. If you cross the border of any country, you do so only on sufferance. That is the same for Americans travelling to Europe. We have to follow your laws, just as you have to follow ours.

Get it now? No special exemptions.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Works for me. A guy (drunken or mentally disturbed) who was in a fight refuses to show ID to the police "I'm not showing you. Take me to jail!" then is arrested. It's disgusting what the police can do in America. They have no respect for human rights.

Reminds me of what happened to my sister in Berlin. Those bastards.