NationStates Jolt Archive

Enormous economic and happiness loss has been traded for some unnecessary security against barely existent terrorist threats. How? The new policy of requiring passports for people coming into the US from Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Travelers submitted a large amount of passport applications that created a huge backlog, ruining vacation plans. Was it really worth all this for one terrorist that will probably still get through with some wetbacks?

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070722/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/passport_mess)

WASHINGTON - The current passport mess is rare among government foul-ups: A top federal official has publicly taken the blame and expressed regret.

"Over the past several months, many travelers who applied for a passport did not receive their document in time for their planned travel. I deeply regret that," says Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty, who is in charge of passports for U.S. citizens. "I accept complete responsibility for this."

In an effort to thwart terrorists, the government implemented new rules on Jan. 23 requiring more Americans to have passports. By summer, more than 2 million Americans were waiting for passports; half a million had waited more than three months since applying for the travel identification that historically has been ready in six weeks.

The massive backlog has destroyed summer vacations, ruined wedding and honeymoon plans, disrupted business meetings and educational trips. Individuals have lost days of work waiting in lines or thousands of dollars in nonrefundable travel and lodging deposits. And Congress has been overwhelmed as constituent pleas for passport help soared from dozens a year to hundreds a month in many offices.

The culprits have variously been identified as inept planning, underfunded preparations, popular misunderstanding of poorly crafted government advertising, unanticipated effects of public debate over immigration, tardy and ill-considered responses to the developing crisis, and even partly on Hurricane Katrina, which damaged the New Orleans processing office.

Some in Congress wonder if the effort hasn't actually harmed security. Others question whether more passports actually contribute much to security at all.

considering that its US passports that they are requiring, it will stop ZERO terrorists from entering the country.

considering that its US passports that they are requiring, it will stop ZERO terrorists from entering the country.

Unless they're American terrorists coming home after a long day of terrorizing other people, but those tend to be either government sponsored terrorists or the local bunch who never travel outstation.

Unless they're American terrorists coming home after a long day of terrorizing other people, but those tend to be either government sponsored terrorists or the local bunch who never travel outstation.

yes but those people wont be stopped since they have US passports.

yes but those people wont be stopped since they have US passports.

But, surely they'll do the gentlemanly thing and register as terrorists when getting passports!

This whole passport thing is a bad joke. I traveled to Bermuda this past March when then full passport rule was in effect and on my return to the US I was asked for mine but my wife was never asked for hers by the customs agent. Wow what great security.

Most terrorist attacks will be small ones like suicide bombers.

The problem is that terrorists are always trying to find ways to get their hands on WMDs. Should a terrorist get their hands on one, then believe me, the cost of the attack will far outweight whatever we may pay to prevent it.

Most terrorist attacks will be small ones like suicide bombers.

The problem is that terrorists are always trying to find ways to get their hands on WMDs. Should a terrorist get their hands on one, then believe me, the cost of the attack will far outweight whatever we may pay to prevent it.

True.

But does that require huge amounts of effort to annoy the average citizen? Doesn't publicly revealing the methods they're using to try and stop terrorists from entering the country just make it easier for the terrorists?

All we're doing is their job for them. The average citizen has absolutely nothing to worry about from terrorism. Let the government departments that are supposed to worry and take care of those things do so. Everyone else just needs to relax.

True.

But does that require huge amounts of effort to annoy the average citizen? Doesn't publicly revealing the methods they're using to try and stop terrorists from entering the country just make it easier for the terrorists?

All we're doing is their job for them. The average citizen has absolutely nothing to worry about from terrorism. Let the government departments that are supposed to worry and take care of those things do so. Everyone else just needs to relax.

I definitely agree with you. I am more likely to be killed driving on the Damn Ryan Expressway than by a terrorist attack. That remains true so long as the terrorists use conventional means. What I mean by that is something like bus bombings or the other stuff Hamas and the other terrorist groups used during the Intifada.

Should they get their hands on potent bio weapons or a nuke, then the game changes.

So by making Americans bring passports to Canada, Mexico and the Carribean, America is somehow protected from terrorists?


lol, wut?

I definitely agree with you. I am more likely to be killed driving on the Damn Ryan Expressway than by a terrorist attack. That remains true so long as the terrorists use conventional means. What I mean by that is something like bus bombings or the other stuff Hamas and the other terrorist groups used during the Intifada.

Should they get their hands on potent bio weapons or a nuke, then the game changes.

Indeed. The key is to not let them get their hands on such equipment, and that responsibility belongs to the governmental authority. We average citizens can't do all that much to affect things on that scale, so we needn't worry about this, as, so long as we ensure responsible, intelligent people are on the job, it is very unlikely.

Basically I just don't want people to live in fear of anything, because living in fear is exactly what they want, and we're supposed to be better than that.

Don't you realize this has nothing to do with terrorism? It's all about control. You have to start requiring American citizens to carry passports to visit Canada before you can require them to carry passports to visit another state. You have to require them to carry a passport to visit another state before you can require them to carry it wherever they go. The Neo-con agenda boils down to letting money do whatever the heck it wants, but keep the people on a tight leash - otherwise, they might actually do something when they realize they are no longer free, and they'll endanger the economy. There is a reason why Bush never called on Americans to sacrifice after 9/11 like FDR did in WWII: calling on Americans to make sacrifices psychologically empowers individuals to change the world. The Neo-con worldview depends on dispair, on people believing that they have no power to protect themselves from the bad-guys, and thus needing the power of the rulers to keep them safe in a scary, scary world. All the time, you gotta keep buying things, though. You wouldn't want the terrorists to win, would you?

But, surely they'll do the gentlemanly thing and register as terrorists when getting passports!

oh i didnt think of that.

silly me!

and <what ecotopia said>

the best part is when you want to come to the states and you need a visa.

you have to answer questions like:
Were you part of the Nazi government in Germany between 1939-45?
Have you commited a felony in your country and are trying to flee the law?
Have you ever engaged in terrorist activities? (no, but i am about to!)

I definitely agree with you. I am more likely to be killed driving on the Damn Ryan Expressway than by a terrorist attack. That remains true so long as the terrorists use conventional means. What I mean by that is something like bus bombings or the other stuff Hamas and the other terrorist groups used during the Intifada.

Should they get their hands on potent bio weapons or a nuke, then the game changes.

Ring me as soon as the chances of dying from a terrorist nuclear attack beat out the chances of dying from a car crash.

Until then, the government is putting it's emphasis on the wrong place.

I recognize that measures should be taken to ensure major weapon systems don't get into the wrong hands, but the wrong measures are being taken. Civil liberties are being removed, while little work is being done where it counts.

I definitely agree with you. I am more likely to be killed driving on the Damn Ryan Expressway than by a terrorist attack. That remains true so long as the terrorists use conventional means. What I mean by that is something like bus bombings or the other stuff Hamas and the other terrorist groups used during the Intifada.

Should they get their hands on potent bio weapons or a nuke, then the game changes.

That's not eve a remote threat. Even dirty bombs are a stretch.

So by making Americans bring passports to Canada, Mexico and the Carribean, America is somehow protected from terrorists?


lol, wut?

No it's to enter the country, you need a passport...including Americans.

Don't you realize this has nothing to do with terrorism? It's all about control. You have to start requiring American citizens to carry passports to visit Canada before you can require them to carry passports to visit another state. You have to require them to carry a passport to visit another state before you can require them to carry it wherever they go. The Neo-con agenda boils down to letting money do whatever the heck it wants, but keep the people on a tight leash - otherwise, they might actually do something when they realize they are no longer free, and they'll endanger the economy. There is a reason why Bush never called on Americans to sacrifice after 9/11 like FDR did in WWII: calling on Americans to make sacrifices psychologically empowers individuals to change the world. The Neo-con worldview depends on dispair, on people believing that they have no power to protect themselves from the bad-guys, and thus needing the power of the rulers to keep them safe in a scary, scary world. All the time, you gotta keep buying things, though. You wouldn't want the terrorists to win, would you?

It's possible, I guess. We'll see how it goes.

Probably not, but it's their own fault for not planning far enough ahead.

Don't you realize this has nothing to do with terrorism? It's all about control. You have to start requiring American citizens to carry passports to visit Canada before you can require them to carry passports to visit another state. You have to require them to carry a passport to visit another state before you can require them to carry it wherever they go. The Neo-con agenda boils down to letting money do whatever the heck it wants, but keep the people on a tight leash - otherwise, they might actually do something when they realize they are no longer free, and they'll endanger the economy. There is a reason why Bush never called on Americans to sacrifice after 9/11 like FDR did in WWII: calling on Americans to make sacrifices psychologically empowers individuals to change the world. The Neo-con worldview depends on dispair, on people believing that they have no power to protect themselves from the bad-guys, and thus needing the power of the rulers to keep them safe in a scary, scary world. All the time, you gotta keep buying things, though. You wouldn't want the terrorists to win, would you?

Yeah, I gotta agree. I wonder what'll happen in the '08 election.

Yeah, I gotta agree. I wonder what'll happen in the '08 election.

It is possible, but we shouldn't really jump to conclusions, just be wary.

Enormous economic and happiness loss has been traded for some unnecessary security against barely existent terrorist threats. How? The new policy of requiring passports for people coming into the US from Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Travelers submitted a large amount of passport applications that created a huge backlog, ruining vacation plans. Was it really worth all this for one terrorist that will probably still get through with some wetbacks?

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070722/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/passport_mess)

Remember, any public reaction of fear and compensation to a terrorist attack vindicates the point of terrorism.
:(

It is possible, but we shouldn't really jump to conclusions, just be wary.

I guess so. But it makes for a strange alternate history. Like if: The election is disregarded, Cheney assumes power, New England and San Francisco secede, and civil war breaks out.

I guess so. But it makes for a strange alternate history. Like if: The election is disregarded, Cheney assumes power, New England and San Francisco secede, and civil war breaks out.

Damn straight New England would secceed. Bush and Cheyney are about as popular as the proverbial fart in church up here. If Canada didn't accept us as new provinces, we'd invite New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey to join us in a new nation. We might not be successful, but we'd damn sure try.

The Neo-con worldview depends on dispair, on people believing that they have no power to protect themselves from the bad-guys, and thus needing the power of the rulers to keep them safe in a scary, scary world.

I guess this explains why Republicans want us to have the individual right to keep and bear arms...:rolleyes:

I guess this explains why Republicans want us to have the individual right to keep and bear arms...:rolleyes:

Why is this the only right that conservatives in this country seem to care about?

I guess this explains why Republicans want us to have the individual right to keep and bear arms...:rolleyes:

In all fairness, Bush vowed to sign a bill re-authorizing the AWB, and in their years of ruling the whole government, the republicans did nothing to improve gun rights.

Damn straight New England would secceed. Bush and Cheyney are about as popular as the proverbial fart in church up here. If Canada didn't accept us as new provinces, we'd invite New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey to join us in a new nation. We might not be successful, but we'd damn sure try.

I know, man. I live there.