Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know if it's still the case but I was in Morocco about 20 years ago and on entry, instead of stamping your passport they put a stamped piece of paper in your passport. The explanation I was given was that if I ever wanted to travel to Israel, not having a stamp from an Arabic country in my passport would be a good thing. I believe Cuba followed a similar policy with Americans who traveled there via Canada or Mexico.
Cuba would ask if you wanted a stamp.
Cruise ships that visit ports in the Middle East design their intineraries to minimize immigration issues. Israel is almost always the first port of call or sometimes not included in the intinerary.
Digital passports, when scanned and data shared, tend to make the stamp obsolete.
Not all countries participate in digital passports or reliably share data.
That's just an argument for adding Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. to the bill, not an argument against the idea itself. (Saudi might be tough, though, because of the hajj, which is going to generate a lot more legitimate traffic to that problematic country than most of the others get.)
Will it stop more terrorist attacks? Maybe, maybe not. (I don't expect it will make a huge difference, but it might make a small bit of difference.) But it doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, so at worst it's just ineffective, not ineffective AND unconstitutional (like so many of the other proposals currently floating around are).
The people expect government to do something to increase the perception of safety.
While not opposed, I view the bill as tossing the masses a bone.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,297 posts, read 54,140,357 times
Reputation: 40606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel
That's just an argument for adding Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. to the bill, not an argument against the idea itself. (Saudi might be tough, though, because of the hajj, which is going to generate a lot more legitimate traffic to that problematic country than most of the others get.)
Will it stop more terrorist attacks? Maybe, maybe not. (I don't expect it will make a huge difference, but it might make a small bit of difference.) But it doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, so at worst it's just ineffective, not ineffective AND unconstitutional (like so many of the other proposals currently floating around are).[/quote]
I see it as at best ineffective if Saudi Arabia, the known source of the 9/11 attackers as well as funders of radical anti-western schools, cannot be added to the list. At worst it's just another show by Congress that accomplishes nothing.
Yup, I remember that as well. Thing to remember is that you are tracked in a ton of ways. If your passport is missing the stamp, that doesn't mean that the US is unaware of where you have been.
It also does not mean the US is always aware of where you have been.
Not all countries buy into digital passports and / or agree to share data.
Yup, I remember that as well. Thing to remember is that you are tracked in a ton of ways. If your passport is missing the stamp, that doesn't mean that the US is unaware of where you have been.
This really isn't about U.S. citizens so much. How do they know where a person from Afghanistan has been the last 5 years?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.