The Department of Homeland Stupidity strikes again…

The US, by 2007, will require all citizens re-entering the country to have passports, even if you’re just going to Canada, Mexico, or other nearby, friendly countries. Before then, all you needed was any kind of government-issued ID (such as a driver’s license). This is designed to combat “terrorism,” though I think it’s a horrible idea. First off, most Americans who go places like Canada (including myself), don’t go into Canada very far (maybe 10 miles over the border) or very long (the most time I’ve spent at once in Canada was an afternoon). If everyone like that is running around with their passport (which is quite valuable on the black market), people are going to get mugged. There will also be a lots of stupid people who have been taking weekend jaunts over the border for years, who suddenly get stuck in another country, and possibly detained, because of this new law. As the article mentioned when it talked about ferry operators, this will decrease tourism (though how significantly, I’m not sure).

Let’s use Bruce Schneier’s algorithm for decision making:
1) What are we trying to protect/prevent? Terrorists from entering the country. That’s fine. Stopping terrorists is a great, noble goal.
2) How will this measure help us? Presumably, terrorists don’t have passports, and this will make it harder for them to enter the country. However, the terrorists from America already have passports, and the ones from abroad (along with other foreign visitors) won’t be affected by this rule.
3) What are the costs? This will inconvenience the millions of people who don’t have passports but go to Canada/Mexico regularly. This will put a strain on passport manufacturing, and cost a fair amount of money for everyone who needs to get a passport. Some people may need to cancel their travel plans if they cannot get a passport soon enough (this is particularly true for funerals and other unplanned events).
4) Are there any side effects/downsides? A few people will probably be stranded in Canada/Mexico because they didn’t bring their passport with them. Tourism will drop. However, I expect that both of these will be minimal.
5)Is it worth it? Keeping in mind that this will have virtually no effect on terrorists but inconvenience millions of citizens, no. This is an awful idea.

The thing that gets me is that this was handed down to us by the Department of Homeland Security. It looks like this was a couple guys saying, “how can we justify this entire department? We need to do something significant that affects everyone.” This was not voted on by Congress, nor was it debated in a setting with public records. This was passed into law without going through the due process of law. Stupid, fucking government!

Leave a Reply

One Comment

  1. Next thing you know, they’ll be x-raying your shoes in airports, for no good reason. After that, they’ll get wind of the discontent, and say “You don’t have to take your shoes off, but if you don’t, you’ll have to get a full pat-down and an angry look instead.”

    Oh, wait.

    Why do I get the impression that the “Department of Homeland Security” is the “Department of meaningless things to placate the masses?”

    Panem et airport screenings!

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>