Just a point of fact, the DHS was created at the end of 2002.
As far as the UK, their processes are just as stringent but less public. It is interesting that the UK allows in some radical Islamic clerics but banned an American talk show host who talked about radical Islamic clerics.
The U.K. Has some of the strictest immigration in Europe for non Europeans. I am not defending the US or DHS, I am only providing some perspective that the US isn't particularly unique, just more public about it.
"...the US isn't particularly unique, just more public about it."
I agree. I strongly dislike the US proposals discussed here, but the fact is travelling abroad means you've already given up much of your privacy.
Those of us in Europe and the US have a somewhat contradictory attitude toward privacy - opposing certain rules or regulations, while happily ignoring others. Take the UK, where the British government has intrusive surveillance laws. A self-serving and apathetic media discourages discussion or opposition to such laws. On the other hand, there was strong opposition against mandatory ID cards when the idea was proposed a few years ago, possibly more to do with the cost of the scheme and little trust in the competency of the government to carry out such a proposal.
So, yes we do have a somewhat inconsistent attitude to privacy. Even in Continental Europe (if the country is part of the Schengen area), biometric passports are common. Applying for a passport often means providing your fingerprints - something a lot of people might be uncomfortable doing.
> Just a point of fact, the DHS was created at the end of 2002.
Yes and thanks for correcting me otherwise I probably would've gone around saying that.
I agree about the UK. It wasn't always this way and I know lots of people who have headaches coming over. I deal with some of these headaches each year working on 44CON - in fact we had one speaker have their visa declined, which has never happened before.
Unfortunately the way the UK is going at the moment it seems isolationism is preferable, and I suspect things will only get worse.
As far as the UK, their processes are just as stringent but less public. It is interesting that the UK allows in some radical Islamic clerics but banned an American talk show host who talked about radical Islamic clerics.
The U.K. Has some of the strictest immigration in Europe for non Europeans. I am not defending the US or DHS, I am only providing some perspective that the US isn't particularly unique, just more public about it.