The new fingerprint law

Last year in June, I wrote an editorial about the new law in Japan requiring foreigners to be fingerprinted when they enter Japan. Recently, through email a reporter contacted me in reference to the editorial. I was asked some questions about the new law (which goes into effect this month). Here are the questions I was asked, along with my answers.

What is your position on the new law. If you are opposed, why? and if not, why not.

There are several compelling reasons to be against the law.

1. It is deficient from an ethical point of view. Please consider carefully the logic here. Why are people being fingerprinted? They are being fingerprinted because they might be terrorists. That is, there is a suspicion that any person entering Japan might be a terrorist, so all people must be treated like suspects.

Terrorism is a crime. A person suspected of terrorism is a criminal suspect.

This means that the act of wanting to enter Japan equals being a criminal suspect.

Do you want to come into Japan? Then you might be a terrorist.

It's like stopping each person who wants to come into Japan and saying, "because you want to enter this country, I suspect you might be a terrorist. We will now investigate you by taking some very personal information about you (your fingerprint.)"

(外人＝テロ犯罪容疑者)

2. Fingerprints constitute a very personal aspect of a person's identity. Having to take something so personal and unique and give it out rather arbitrarily to be put in a huge data base is disconcerting. It's dehumanizing.

3. Despite the clear presence of terrorists of native Japanese origin in Japan's history, it is only foreigners being singled out as terror suspects. This is clearly false and represents extreme prejudice. (It's not necessarily racist, but certainly something similar.)

4. I am a permanent resident in Japan. I have lived here for almost 14 years. I have a wife who is Japanese. I have two children, who are Japanese. Why am I *now* going to be treated like a criminal suspect? I live here. I have a business here. This is my home. I feel like crying. What a fool I've been. (外人帰れ！)

What do you think is wrong with the law?

1. It will have no effect whatsoever as far as terrorist prevention. I would like to encourage you to do your homework here. You're a reporter, right? In other words, "if your mother says she loves you, check it out." I challenge you to find a single serious, scientific study that shows fingerprinting all foreigners will prevent terrorism. I honestly don't think there is any such study in existence. This should take most people's breaths away, unfortunately it doesn't.

2. The program is pork. It's insanely expensive. You're a reporter, find out how much the program is costing. Calculate how much each individual tax payer is paying in Japan for a program that will not work.

3. The technological premises behind the program are seriously flawed. I investigated this when I did my article for the Japan Times. The technology to accurately catalogue everyone's fingerprints and create a valid data base is simply not available. This is a very important point and needs to be researched carefully. Again, the technology will not work. At a very minimum, for the technology to to come near to working, the scanner would have to be cleaned after each scan. A person would need to offer at least 8 fingers to be scanned. The scan would have to be done slowly, and then there would need to be some type of verification to insure the prints had been taken accurately. None of this is going to happen. The program will be done slapdash to appease the bureaucrats and make it look like it is being done appropriately. Tatemae the program will exist. Honne, it will not.

4. It will have a negative impact on the economy. Less tourists. Less people who will want to call Japan their home.

What are the potential dangers of having something like this in Japan?

1. Foreigners will be stigmatized as suspect terrorists.

2. Please consider, what is the basis for the constitution? Human rights. When any country thinks it can walk all over a non-citizen's human rights because they are a non-citizens, they are saying the constitution only protects citizens. If this is the case we have a real problem. How does one get to be a citizen? Well, according to the law. Who makes the law? The government. This means government is not beholden to the people, but the people are beholden to the government. This is a serious problem. You can't undermine the rights of non-citizens without eventually undermining the rights of citizens as well.

If it is used in the United States, why not here in Japan?

The program should not be being used in America. It is a disgrace.

Does Japan need anything of this nature which speaks to an anti-terrorism bill? why? why not?

A more rational policy would be one of direct retaliation. *Only* Americans should be fingerprinted when they come into Japan. And the policy should be stated to be one of retaliation. This would anger Americans and potentially have the effect of getting them to petition their own government to not fingerprint Japanese citizens when they enter America. (I have to admit though, because of the cost involved, only fingerprinting Americans is not really feasible.)

Consider the following. The terrorist attack on 9/11 was a horrible breach of airport security. Who is responsible for airline security? The government. Therefore, who failed to secure the airlines? The government. After this spectacular failure of government, how many people stopped to ask, "should the government really be in control of airport security after this abysmal failure? Should we perhaps let the airlines manage their own security? No. Instead, the response was to attack two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, to take away civil liberties from Americans, and to harass foreigners entering into America.

Why not let airlines handle their own security?

I'd like to say I find the whole response to 9/11 strange, but unfortunately I can't. It was all too typical. My guess is the program in Japan is a result of gaiatsu on America's part. This is indeed quite sad.