Korean government wants to fingerprint foreign tourists and residents by 2010.

According to the Korea Times

The Ministry of Justice said Saturday that it will propose to revise the Immigration Law so that all foreign nationals, either for short-term stay or long-term, are obliged to provide their biometric information to the Korean authorities when they come to the country. It will submit the revision bill to the National Assembly in the second half of next year, and the new regulation, if passed, will take effect as early as 2010.

Up to 2003, Korean immigration officials used to fingerprint long-term foreign residents who were to stay here for a year or more when giving them alien registration numbers. But the Roh Moo-hyun administration scrapped the biometric data collection, following criticism that it could infringe on human rights, said a ministry official.

In general it seems like a sensible plan to me. The article focuses on the tourism angle, with the subheading "Revival of Fingerprinting Expected to Have Adverse Impact on Tourism." They talked to one former Korea Times columnist:

Mike Weisbart, who has stayed here since 1995, said, ``My fingerprints have been on file at the immigration office since 1995 and I have no problems with that. But for short-term visitors, I'm not sure why they need it and, if the system is annoying or invasive, it might run counter to the government's plan to attract more tourists.''

He said that he basically believes that it is the right of the country to demand visitors give the information if they want to come here. But he said it could have an adverse impact on the government's plan to attract more incoming tourists. ``If the system is poor and is inconvenient for visitors, they will go back to their country and speak poorly of Korea,'' Weisbart said.

I can't think of any big reason why tourists would skip out on coming to a country because it requires fingerprinting. Unless they're planning to commit crimes. Provided the fingerprinting done at the airport is done quickly and in a non-discriminatory manner, I don't think it will be much more of an inconvenience than the long lines already are. In the US the plan was implemented by the Department of Homeland Security though it was left up to the airlines to fingerprint their arrivals, so I can imagine not only the chaos and disorganization but also the sense of shame foreign visitors must have felt. Rather than fighting a War on Terror by fingerprinting foreigners, the US essentially fights a War on Foreigners. Let's hope South Korea doesn't make that same mistake.

As the article says only the US and Japan fingerprint foreign tourists. When it was implemented in Japan it was a contentious issue, if the blogs are to be taken seriously. 702 out of 881 respondents to a Japan Probe poll said they didn't support the new fingerprinting system, implemented last year. A considerably larger poll at Japan Guide also reveals opposition, with 20% of respondents saying the plan is a bad idea and another 20% saying it's a reason not to visit Japan. Some foreigners organized petitions and protests, but to little effect, and some took it a little further. Meanwhile the New York Times ran an article saying the Japanese system could be bad for business.

Some of the most vocal critics have been among foreign business leaders, who say the screening could hurt Japan’s standing as an Asian business center, especially if it is inefficiently carried out, leading to long waits at airports. Business groups here warn that such delays could make Japan less attractive than rival commercial hubs like Hong Kong and Singapore, where entry procedures are much easier.

The business groups also contend that the screening runs counter to recent efforts by the government to attract more foreign investment and tourism.

“If businessmen based here have to line up for two hours every time they come back from traveling, it will be a disaster,” said Jakob Edberg, policy director in the Tokyo office of the European Business Council. “This will affect real business decisions, like whether to base here.”

As with objections to the US system, foreigners in Japan were worried about what would be done with that personal information once obtained. The plan had some growing pains, with visitors complaining of longer lines and of counters ill-equipped to handle the new procedures.

That NYT article also points out that while this system was done under the guise of preventing terrorism, the only terrorist attack carried out in Japan in recent memory was the 1995 sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway, done by a domestic religious cult. Likewise, the most recent terror attack in Korea was a subway fire started by a Korean man in 2003, and as a matter of fact the most heinous crimes in Korea are always done by Koreans. The original Korea Times article says this new system will help curtail crimes committed by foreigners, but let's not forget that in reality we're not as dangerous as we're portrayed. The media always depicts us as sexual predators, as drug-pushers, as unqualified teachers, and as criminals, but the foreigner crime rate is greatly sensationalized as ROK Drop thoroughly demonstrated. I don't object to monitoring a country's immigrant population, to taking steps to halt illegal immigration, and to reduce foreigner crime as much as possible. Hell, all three things are duties of a government. But if these measures are in fact to make Korea a safer place, let's hope that same diligence spreads to a police force and a legal system that have routinely acted counter to the safety of its citizens (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and has proven itself unwilling to help its foreigners (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).