Delayed Entry

There has been much recent debate on Japan's new immigration system for foreigners, requiring us to provide photographs and fingerprints upon entry. Its principle lies in the belief that this system will aid in catching terrorists who gain entry, and at least provide another layer of defence for denying entry to terrorists. Despite the robust amount of protest and opposition towards this issue, I doubt the Japanese government is going to change anything, unless there is a universal effort to boycott the entire country (both economically and physically - which obviously is not going to happen) or the government decides to postpone its implementation in order to ensure a smoother transition.

Reading many articles and blogs about this issue, including http://reentryjapan.blogspot.com, I want to try and put everything into perspective.

Points of Agreement:

First of all, a sovereign country like Japan has the right to choose its immigration security. If they have the capability and funds to implement it, they are allowed to do whatever they want. They can easily look at America's system (which is exactly the same for foreigners - but not foreign residents) and justify their own by pointing to the successes that America has had in deterring acts of terrorism. Therefore, it would be pointless to talk about principles, because the Japanese government 1) has the freedom to choose its policies and 2) is doing it for the "greater good" of the Japanese people.

Points of Disagreement:

Wow that was short. Now for the bad stuff.

We have heard all the arguments regarding human rights and privacy, emphasis on the increasing discrimination of foreigners in Japan, and potential loss of business and tourism just to name a few. So the real question I must ask is, is this extra security layer worth it?

In a few short days of implementation, it has been conceded systems cannot handle the capacity that Japan's airports and seaports receive. This has led to long waiting times and pissed-off tourists, businessman and residents (I know I certainly would be angry if I had to wait 1.5 hours to get through immigration). Japan is certainly not ingratiating itself with the global public with these travel horror-stories running on international news channels. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether this system actually uses the fingerprint and photo data, rather than just storing it in a database. How is airport security synchronizing its collected intelligence with national security to make sure that the data serves the public? Perhaps making these points transparent will clear up some misunderstanding.

America is having enough trouble dealing with using its similar data. Terrorists arrested at immigration haven't been done so with the help of the finger-print or photographic data, but instead they are arrested due to a minor crime, and then through lucky coincidence found out to be terrorists and indicted. This is little point in denying people privacy and putting the country's economic recovery and reputation on the world's chopping block unless the system you're using is really going to be helpful, or unless there is an imminent threat, right?

America implemented similar security measures amid intense post-9/11 sympathy, which is why little was heard from protest groups even with the system's ineffectiveness and invasion of privacy. Japan does not have that advantage. It has a pacifist constitution, and its worse terrorist attack has been carried out by locals, not foreigners. Every government, including Japan, should remain vigilant in the face of terrorism, but sacrificing so much for the facade of keeping Japan safe is too much too swallow.

Conclusion:

Like I said, Japan has every right to employ whatever measures they feel will keep their country safe, but the opportunity cost of the latest security measures, which were hurriedly planned, poorly executed and in need of dire improvement, is proving to be hardly worth the trouble, judging by the beating they are taking from the world's press.