All foreigners over 17 will be fingerprinted and photographed when they enter Korea starting in August. A revision to the immigration control law was passed by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on Monday.
Once the bill passes a plenary session, it will be possible to stop foreigners, who have been deported for crimes in the country, from reentering on a different passport.
Korean-language version here. I was looking around for an offensive cartoon of foreign criminals to pair with this post---Dong-A Ilbo, you taking the day off?---but am a little disappointed to not find one.
This issue has been discussed for years. I've written about it twice before
* December 28, 2008: "Korean government wants to fingerprint foreign tourists and residents by 2010."
* September 22, 2009: "Bill for fingerprinting foreign tourists by 2012 to be introduced next month."
and said that I don't see a problem with asking for fingerprints of tourists upon entry. It was introduced to Japan a couple years ago, and was met with some heavy opposition by readers of Japan Probe and Japan Guide. You'd need to read through some of the articles from 2006 and 2007, which pop up in a Google search, to get a sense of the climate in Japan a few years ago, as a lot of the outrage came because residents and visa-holders were also to have their fingerprints taken at each entry. It's not clear if that would happen in South Korea. The 2008 Korea Times article says
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.
but it doesn't say whether data of "long-term" foreign nationals would be taken upon first entry or each entry.
As I said this has been in the works for years, but it's recently been in the news because a couple of suspected Taliban members were apprehended in Korea earlier in the month. The Korea Times had a headline typical of that paper, "Seoul Plans to Fingerprint Foreign Suspects From Aug.," but I wouldn't go so far as to consider all foreign tourists as suspects, or to imply that Korea thinks that. The reports of foreign crime are often greatly exaggerated, with reports invariably writing about the increase of crime without also noting the increase of foreigners in the country. The English-language newspapers also pay undue attention to the threat of foreign sexual predators, as demonstrated recently on this March 22nd post, with Korea recently announcing foreign sex offenders would not be permitted into the country.
The government has reportedly changed its regulations to permanently ban foreigners convicted of sex offenses from entering the country.
In light of a series of brutal sex crimes that have outraged citizens recently, the Ministry of Justice said that a revised bill was put into effect last month prohibiting foreign sex criminals from entering the country.
That's what the Chosun Ilbo wrote on March 22nd, but of course the perpetrators of those "brutal sex crimes" were Korean.
36 comments:
It'll be interesting to see how they handle it. Wife and I head back to Canada for a visit so we'll see upon coming back if we get "tagged".
I just hope it's not every time you leave re enter the country.
While there are sure to be opponents to this scheme among your readership, I'll go out on a limb and say I don't see anything wrong with it either.
A country has (and should have, in my opinion) broad discretion over the conditions it imposes on foreigners visiting and/or immigrating. Fingerprinting is minimally invasive, barely any kind of inconvenience, and honestly, sensible even if the government wants to impose it on every single resident of the country. Don't like it? Sorry, folks...that's the price of visiting Korea (or the US, which I believe also fingerprints people these days).
they do it in thailand, at least taking your picture when you enter and leave not sure about the fingerprints
And of course most of y'all won't remember but once upon a time you had to get your fingerprints taken everytime you got an Alien Registration Card. That was stopped In 2004 I think because Immigration had nothing to do and nowhere to store thousands of physical paper and ink 10prunt cards. Now with digital there's less hassel I guess.
In a nutshell this ain't anything new in Korea. Quite your whining.
The US takes biometrics whenever a foreigner enters or leaves. The biggest problem with the system is the time it takes. The last time we went to the US, we stood in the immigration line for just over an hour because everyone was being fingerprinted. Of course, this being Korea, if the line gets too long, they'll open additional lines.
Hell, you've gotta give your index fingerprint to get a driver's license in the state of Georgia. A battle was fought and lost on that issue back in the early 90s.
My 'whining' on the issue involves it being completely unnecessary, and an invasion of one's privacy, and part of a worldwide trend in hampering the free-flow of citizens that runs contrary to increased free-flow of capital.
The stories about 'suspected Taliban' have not actually resulted in convictions or produced anything of any substance, and seem to come at an all-to-convenient juncture.
It's interesting, by the way, that opposition to giving up information about oneself and allowing oneself to be inconvenienced in the face of pointless bureaucracy is increasingly framed as 'whining', and thus 'feminine' and 'weak'. Since when is it 'manly' to spend half an hour queuing to be fingerpinted? How is it 'tough' to give up biometrics?
If it can be done as quickly as it was when I was in Japan last, I have no problem, even if as a foreign national I have to do it each time I enter the country.
ROK nationals have their fingerprints in a national database when they get their national ID, no? I don't know if that's biometrically catalogued and saved, but it is on record.
Kushibo, my husband's thumbprint is right on back of his Korean ID card. Anyone can see it. It's not even encrypted. So I'm sure it's cataloged somewhere as well.
Also, the fingerprinting hasn't taken long for us any time we've re-entered the United States. It's the seventy-five "are you carrying meat?" questions that take a long time.
I don't know, I'm kind of torn. Considering how often one's privacy is violated in the country, putting a fingerprint in a server doesn't quite seem on the same scale. What is someone going to do with it? More importantly, what is someone trying to hide from? If you're going to commit some sort of heinous crime, wear gloves. They're not collecting DNA...yet...
So long as the system is effective (e.g. efficient on the collecting side, produces good results for the Powers That Be that actually get results), there are bigger fish to fry.
@holterbarbour: "Fingerprinting is minimally invasive, barely any kind of inconvenience, and honestly, sensible even if the government wants to impose it on every single resident of the country."
I hadn't heard about that. Are all Koreans actually registered?
That's the thing - perhaps the worst part of this scheme is its pointlessness. How many people are actually banned from the country each year? Is it worth this massive bureaucratic rigmarole to prevent them from coming back in through the usual routes? What's really at play here?
Back in the day, 1990 to be precise when I first came to Korea, all expats were fingerprinted when we went to immigration to register and get our little blue alien registration booklets.
The same was true when I taught in Japan the year before.
I can't recall anyone complaining about that back then; perhaps it even worked as a deterrent for anyone with a suspicious background coming to Korea in the first place (though some still slid through the cracks).
I got fingerprinted my first two years in Korea. I don't mind it, really. As with transcripts, I'd prefer being printed once, and have that kept on record as fingerprints, like transcripts, don't change. I'd rather see the media treat English teachers more fairly than get fussed about fingerprints.
This is my point - fingerprinting foreigners back in 1990 would have been an even more pointless task than it would be today. Its only purpose would be to confer the stain of suspicion onto foreign workers.
I went to Japan about a year and a half ago and had my fingerprints taken electronically. It was so fast it wasn't even slightly inconvenient. I imagine it'll be just as easy for Korea.
In truth, I don't see a problem with it. I'd follow Stevie Bee's perspective about it "hampering the free-flow of citizens" but, unless you're a criminal, I don't really see it as a problem.
Regardless, I won't mind being fingerprinted, 'specially if the locals are already, a la Kushibo.
To be honest, I don't think it's a big deal. Koreans already do it, and as many have said, if it's run like Japan, it shouldn't take much time.
I know the US requires foreigners to be fingerprinted upon entry, so in all fairness, as a US citizen, I can't really complain that Korea reqires me to be fingerprinted. And I didn't mind it in Japan. It was over so quickly, that I wouldn't have had time to complain anyway.
It's pretty much the trend all nations are going. The USA, if not the first, was the big mover on this a few years ago.
Nations, of course, can set any rules they want for foreigners at their borders. They have to balance security with cost to operate and the cost to tourism and foreign investment.
If I recall, a long time ago you had to get printed for your E2. I was never but I heard stories that used to be a part of it. Anyone can confirm?
I did not have to be finger printed for an H1B visa (or a drug/hiv test) in the USA but for my green card app finger printing and HIV/TB testing was required.
I've had my prints on file with Immigration since '96, so me it's no big deal, and neither are biometrics at airports... ooh, putting your index finger on a plate of glass takes SO long.
I've had my biometrics taken in three other countries literally dozens of times over the last 5 years, and it's NEVER more than 30 seconds. As someone else said above, it's the questions they fire at you that takes all that time, the US being the biggest offender here.
Japan practically waves me through (although the customs guys might slow me down a bit sometimes), as does Thailand, but the US talks my ear off for 5-10 minutes with their interrogation (maybe they don't believe I didn't just arrive from the Evil Korea?)
This is my point - fingerprinting foreigners back in 1990 would have been an even more pointless task than it would be today. Its only purpose would be to confer the stain of suspicion onto foreign workers.
Why? How is it any different for all Korean nationals who are fingerprinted? Do they also have the stain of suspicion on them, or is it only the foreigners simply for being foreign?
Much like the HIV and proposed drug tests, there is the question of who pushed the implementation of fingerprinting foreigners and what were their motivations. The HIV test stirred some controversy with the suggestion it was born from bad statistics and xenophobic zeal.
I also have a problem with governments, that have proven themselves incompetent time again, being trusted with information that can be used to free or imprison someone. Handing over such intrusive powers simply empowers governments and does little to protect their citizens.
I love that we'll be fingerprinted. I hope we loose even more civil liberties. It's great, it's easy, I hardly notice when they slip away piece by piece. They make it so convenient. It's actually a good thing. Maybe I might loose my passport or ARC and then my fingerprints could help prove who I am. Anyway, these kind of things are worse in other countries probably, or just the same. And the government knows what its doing. And we are visitors here after all. And if you don't like it here that much you can always just go home. You don't have to wa-wa-whine about it. And getting fingerprinted is actually kind of cool. You can tell yours friends about it later. It's part of your travel adventures. Besides if you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to fear anyway? Like fingerprints, big deal. I totally support Korea in itself attempt to protect its country. After all it is Korea's country. I mean Korea is Korean.
korok, you're welcome to actually address the issues.
First off, Korean adults get their fingerprints taken. Minors don't have this done to them. Also, Koreans have ID numbers that work everywhere for them. I would have no problem if we had the same cards that would give us the same access. I think residents here should be pushing for these things if we are getting fingerprinted.
korok, you're welcome to actually address the issues.
Am I? Are you sure it's within my visa status? I don't want to have go to down to immigration and answer a bunch of questions. Actually addressing the issues can get you in trouble in Korea - haven't you found that to be the case yourself?
Actually addressing the issues can get you in trouble in Korea - haven't you found that to be the case yourself?
If you're dealing with an a-hole, it can get you in trouble anywhere. A certain somebody who didn't like what I wrote on my blog and at The Marmot's Hole wrote some nasty stuff to my university, accusing me of plagiarism, in an attempt to torpedo a scholarship I'd applied for.
@chris in south korea:
I don't think there are any plans to fingerprint everyone in Korea, but if Korea (or the US or any other nation) decides that it's a good idea to have everyone's fingerprints on file, that's fine with me. As I said, fingerprinting is minimally invasive (unlike, say, taking a blood/cell swab/hair sample for DNA testing), and is pretty much only useful in criminal investigations. But indeed, of great value in criminal investigations.
DNA sampling is another matter. While also very useful in criminal investigations, it's typically more invasive on the subject, bringing 4th amendment concerns into play (obviously only talking about a US perspective here). There are also some concerns that DNA info can be very harmful if released to the wrong parties (e.g., an insurance company wanting to know if you're predisposed to any hereditary conditions).
With DNA sampling of an entire country, the privacy/individual rights problems outweigh the benefits. But with fingerprinting? I think the benefits outweigh the problems.
I'm not accusing anybody in particular of hypocrisy, but considering the outcry about the inconsistently applied provisions for background checks and HIV testing, I'm actually surprised at how many people are referring to this as no big deal, at least in terms of privacy.
ROK nationals are fingerprinted, yes, but it is done so primarily as a form of backing up identification, not as a means of law enforcement. Granted, South Korea can require of foreign nationals what they want and said foreign nationals can simply choose not to come, but if one were so inclined they could make a good argument that the fingerprinting is about singling out foreign nationals and not ROK nationals as potential criminals.
I would be loath to single out ROK as an instigator, as this is a common requirement of foreign visitors and/or residents in many countries nowadays, but if HIV testing or background checks were an invasion of privacy or a way in which foreigners were singled out as potential criminals, how is this any different?
Frankly, I didn't really have a problem with the background checks, even if they weren't applied to everyone right away, nor the HIV testing, since South Korea provides extensive HIV treatment to HIV-positive people and an influx of HIV-positive people could bankrupt that system (I firmly believe we should move on from AIDS as a civil rights issue and start treating it more pragmatically as a public health issue so that we can actually attack it and prevent new cases as much as possible).
I agree with Kushibo here - why is there this bizarre double standard whereby fingerprinting is okay but DNA testing is not? It actually takes seconds to collect a skin cell swab for DNA testing, perhaps even less time than fingerprinting. The only differentiation that holterbarbour seems to be making is that one involves sticking something into one's mouth. You really should consider this issue beyond the minor inconvenience it presents you at the point of contact and see its larger context. Is that too much to ask from university-educated individuals? By the logic previously demonstrated, having video camera placed in one's apartment to watch every move and guarantee no malfeasance would be the perfect solution to the problem, seeing as how it occasions absolutely no inconvenience to the foreigner, but offers maximum security for Korea.
I differ with Kushibo on one crucial point, however - I don't believe that it is any kind of a defence for Korea to say, 'this is how it is and if you don't like it, don't come to our country'. The government and the immigration service do not 'own' the country, and have no right to make outsized demands of individuals seeking to cross its borders. There was a time when the general belief was that citizens of other nations were to be treated with courtesy and respect and not as some kind of 'infection' to be dealt with in an aggressive a manner as was required. This contrary notion has risen in prevalence in concert with the opening up of developing markets in the name of liberal economics, and represents its underside, the necessary inverse logic of its dogma. My point is that we, as individuals of any nations, must absolutely not believe that it is okay to be treated in this way - as an infection to be contained - and must react against it wherever and however possible.
Stevie Bee wrote:
I differ with Kushibo on one crucial point, however - I don't believe that it is any kind of a defence for Korea to say, 'this is how it is and if you don't like it, don't come to our country'.
I'm not so sure I presented that as a defense so much as a pragmatic reality:
The government and the immigration service do not 'own' the country, and have no right to make outsized demands of individuals seeking to cross its borders.
Well, they do represent the country and, particularly in a representative democracy, it is their perogative, granted by the electorate.
There was a time when the general belief was that citizens of other nations were to be treated with courtesy and respect and not as some kind of 'infection' to be dealt with in an aggressive a manner as was required.
When and where?
This contrary notion has risen in prevalence in concert with the opening up of developing markets in the name of liberal economics, and represents its underside, the necessary inverse logic of its dogma.
Korea treated foreigners as a potential infestation for centuries. The US had terrific barriers to potentially undesirable foreigners from Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, and especially China (Chinese Exclusion Act), what seems long before the developments you mention above.
My point is that we, as individuals of any nations, must absolutely not believe that it is okay to be treated in this way - as an infection to be contained - and must react against it wherever and however possible.
Okay, I'm going to go back to playing devil's advocate again. Doesn't a country have the right to decide who it lets in? Including the type of people it allows in? That's an issue of national sovereignty, and I'm not so sure countries should be required to open their borders to any and all comers. I know that Cato Institute idealists pine for wax longingly for such a time, but I don't know if the rest of the world is ready for that.
And again, playing advocatus diaboli, if a country sets up reasonable barriers (education checks, background checks, health checks, etc.), don't those who pass them set themselves up to be better equipped to succeed in the new country, while getting something of a seal of approval that they are "the good foreigners"?
I am strongly against the fingerprinting of any individuals who have not committed a crime or are not involved in security areas of government - and perhaps under contract to sensitive areas of private industry, though I believe they have other methods such as retinal scanning.
I find this to be both unnecessary and invasive as well as extremely insulting.
I will not cooperate with this. If I have to leave I will do so. I will not visit any country with requirements such as these. These measures are based on fear and will promote that fear, as well as deaden individuals to the concept of individual rights.
It seems - regretfully - to have done so already on this forum and on others. I respect the right to an opinion for those on this board but I cannot respect the opinion.
Canada is planning to institute similar rules and other nations have already done so. This is a retreat from respect and a voluntary step towards shirking of responsibility - ironically - by the individual.
I posted a letter I wrote on that other site under the name Arthur Dent. The title is "Ottawa to seek biometric data on all visitors."
I do not believe this will create more security for all. In fact I see little evidence that it will accomplish anything at all, except a huge waste of money.
I would ask those who have posted to notice that few have said anything about how much safer it will make them feel. If we are so fearful, then why is this so?
If Canada pursues this same course of action, of fingerprinting foreigner guests, I will surrender my citizenship.
It seems that few are really concerned about this, and though I have few allies, I will not accept these measures, though I be alone in it.
Like others who have commented here, I was fingerprinted on arrival during a trip to Japan a couple years ago, and found the process to be quick and painless. I have no problem with added security measures, as long as: A) there is enough staff to move things along reasonably quickly; and B) that staff treats visitors with respect and courtesy. So far, I've always found Korean customs in Incheon to be fine in both those respects, and I don't really see that changing with the addition of fingerprinting.
Bruce, I respect your opinion there and would like to hear more, if you care to elaborate.
Hi Brian,
Thanks for that. I am not usually a poster here and don't post very much on that other site either - as compared to some others at least. However, I do follow what is happening and being discussed on this site as well as several others.
To the issue then: Firstly, I see no reason for this to become common place - especially amongst democracies - particularly Western democracies, if not relatively new democracies such as Korea and Japan. There is much room for debate here in what constitutes a democracy, but each country has cultural values as a part of their history which may not coincide with Western ideals of what democracy is or is not. I would cite Thailand, Korea and Japan as not being democracies in that sense. The direction they choose is of course up to them. One cannot impose values on another culture with much hope of success. Indeed, it may be counterproductive as we have seen over the past decades and centuries. But I stray from the point.
If all western governments and their allies impose these measures, then they are effectively fingerprinting each others citizens while not having to impose it at home. Of course, for those who don't travel, this is not an issue. In addition, those people may not care that their friends and relatives who do travel are being fingerprinted.
Some equate fingerprinting with the possession of a passport, a photograph taken at customs, or any other security measure - not including biometric data stored on passports, retinal scanning etc. - taken to protect citizens.
For myself, I equate fingerprinting with having already committed a crime. For a country to 'welcome' you as a visitor, a contributor economically, or as a resident foreigner by fingerprinting you on arrival seems to me to be the shabbiest of welcomes.
There is another aspect to be explored. I believe this will encourage mistrust as well as exemplify a surrender to fear. Fear is a natural reaction, it is instinctive and a valuable survival trait. However, it is when we have faced our fears that we have excelled, as individuals and as a species. This policy, in my view, is a surrender to those fears.
The next point I would raise is the question of what they hope to accomplish by this? Do they really believe that hardened criminals or dangerous individuals with any success at what they do will be caught in any number by this policy? I doubt it.
Continued...
Therefore, it is directed at those who are relatively law abiding and will cause no great harm. Why impose this on them?
A further point would be that as visitors - whether tourists or resident aliens - many already are at a disadvantage. This adds insult to that status. Since it is a foreign government imposing this regulation, one is not entirely protected by citizenship, no matter which nation is demands this personal information (and it is your body, regardless of law, statute, or cultural imperative, the only person who can willingly surrender it is you).
The more complicated aspect of this is that since the home nation of many who are abroad are also instituting this entry requirement, how can one fight against it? The rabbit calling the bear furry.
Please bear with me, if this seems a rather long post - I have given some thought to it, as I have had the opportunity to do so over the last year. Perhaps not enough, but then I am not an expert in any of these matters, save the decision as to what information I will provide to governments - foreign or domestic.
One should consider at this point where rights come from, a much discussed subject. Personally, I believe rights come from individuals and not nations or states (or groups of states). That some have taken this to what others might consider to be extremes, likely has had or will have an impact on how many view it.
This brings me to my next point: the aspect of the right to a nation to defend itself and protect its citizens from outside harm. A valid concern, but one we have seen matched and even outmatched by forces beyond our control as a species. I do not believe that this policy will encourage trust and mutual affection among nation or peoples, nor will it ease cooperation in times when each nation requires aid from another.
Further, one should ask which is the more vulnerable, the nation or the individual?
I think this is more than enough for those readers of this blog to consider for now. I would ask only that in responding, each should take the time to challenge one's initial reaction before posting.
In closing, and somewhat at counterpoint to the latter comment, but with the added relevancy that I have considered this for a year or more and I have already decided on my view. I will of course welcome debate, but speaking strictly for myself, my decision is made, at whatever cost to myself, and it may be great. I value what we have built, and am at great pains to lose it. If freedom is not for all, then it is for no one. These are not platitudes or ideals, but have their very real counterparts.
Everywhere around Asia they start to target foreigners to give a lot of info, it will become more and more troublesome to travel around in the future. They want to have many tourists, they want to do business, learn English, but they don't want foreigners in their country. How can that work? I wonder.. *sigh
Post a Comment