Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Analysis With Dan Stein and Jeanne Butterfield

Aired January 05, 2004 - 14:15   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, stick out your finger and smile. More now on the fingerprinting and photographing of visitors to the U.S. A Homeland Security program that began today. We've been talking about it all afternoon. It's controversial, yes. And joining us from Washington to debate it, Dan Stein of FAIR, the Federation of American Immigration Reform. And Jeanne Butterfield of the American Immigration Lawyer's Association. Nice to have you both.
JEANNE BUTTERFIELD, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION: Thank you, Kyra.

DAN STEIN, FAIR: Good to be here.

PHILLIPS: Dan, let's start with you. Why do you think it's a good idea?

STEIN: FAIR's been pushing for a program like this now for about 20 years. And Congress has actually passed authorizing legislation for something similar years before 9/11. And now finally because of 9/11, it's finally getting done.

The U.S. is joining the standards of modern industrialized nations with information technologies to do something that's really important which is to match up an alien's arrival data with his or her departure data so we know whether someone has in fact left who has come in on a temporary visa has in fact left.

And if you're ever going to get a handle, not only on terrorists and be able to follow up on improved intelligence who you find people you may think would be a terrorist threat, but also ever control illegal immigration, you've got have to have an exit/entry system of this kind.

So we're very gratified that the administration is moving forward, salute Secretary Ridge. it's a great step, want to see it expanded, certainly it's going to be a challenge to get it on the land, ports of entry. But we're looking forward to that over the next 18 months or so.

PHILLIPS: Jeanne, are you saluting Secretary Ridge?

BUTTERFIELD: I'm afraid not, Kyra. Of course we all want our nation to be more secure. But I think does this really make us more secure? And dose it do more harm than good? And I think the program falls short on both counts.

Of course, we want to know who is coming here and tending to do us harm and to keep them out. But the point to do that at is at the point of visa issuance abroad, at the pre-inspection and clearance stations, and at the point of transport with passenger manifests. Our borders should be our last line of defense, not our first.

And again, security is only as good as the intelligence data that underlies this whole system. There are more than 20 databases that need to be combined and correlated. And I think as we've seen in recent days, our data bases are woefully inadequate. We are mismatching names, we are declaring terrorist alerts for grandmas and little kids.

And when you multiply that by the magnitude of what's going into effect today, I think we have the potential to actually do ourselves harm economically and with our allies and friends abroad.

We have time concerns. This program has not been adequately funded. There aren't staff in place at all the ports of entry where this is going into place today to make sure that honest, law abiding visitors get in and come here to contribute to this great nation in the ways we want them to.

PHILLIPS: And, Dan, it does seem like there's a lot of information. If you start looking at every single visitor that's coming in and out of this country, it's a lot of time. a lot of money, a lot of resources. What about the situation where maybe their name is similar to another name that appeared on a list? It just seems like it's got a lot of room for mistakes.

STEIN: Well, look, I'm not going to let Jeanne walk away with a fatalistic, pessimistic, it can't be done attitude because, look, this is the most powerful nation on Earth. We have hundreds of millions of credit card transactions every day in this country.

Look, our immigration system and the databases, the interoperability are obviously a mess. Everybody knows the immigration system is in chaos. But to make the argument that we can't important steps forward introducing new technology, collecting important data and acting on that information because we've had a legacy of a chaotic system that's been torpedoed by commercial interests and immigration lawyers and other people doesn't mean -- I mean we've got to start somewhere.

And if we don't move forward with this, our society will never have the kind of border inspections procedures needed over the next 30 years to deal with the incredible crush of migration pressure from all over the world. This is an age of modern mobility. People are on the move.

Everybody who's used the visit system is saying, Hey, this is easy. It's a quick fingerprint scan, people don't have any problem with the technologies. They're comfortable using it. It takes only a couple of minutes. Yes, there's going to be glitches when you first implement a system like this.

But good grief. I mean at the least, this is what we can do in the wake of 9/11. There is so much more that needs to be done on top of U.S. visit if we're ever going to make our immigration system secure.

PHILLIPS: Jeanne, we are dealing with a brand new world, a whole different type of threat. I mean you would think as an American you would say, OK, you're right. No matter what, we should do whatever we can to protect our safety.

BUTTERFIELD: Well, I think what we need are security measures that are both smart and effective. We need to be more secure and we need to make sure the intelligence and the data that we're gathering is applied at the places that it can be effective.

To merely collect fingerprints and photographs on 24 -- at this point -- 24 million people who come into our country each year, doesn't tell us anything necessarily useful. It doesn't tell us that the person who didn't leave on time is a grandma who got ill or a kid with an ear infection. We've just compiled massive amounts of information...

(CROSSTALK)

BUTTERFIELD: ... intelligence that can allow us to know who's coming over and intending to do us harm and to keep them out at point of visa issuance, at the point of pre-inspection, and, finally, yes, at the land border. But we need to put the things into place that make this be a smart and effective system. We haven't done that so far.

STEIN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) what Jeanne is trying to do is say let's only deploy resources to find known terrorists and not worry about immigration compliance. If people come and overstay visas...

(CROSSTALK)

STEIN: If you're ever going to be able to actually enforce the terms of a visa in this country, and this is so key. It's fundamental component of every aspect of U.S. immigration law and compliance.

(CROSSTALK)

STEIN: I must be hitting a nerve here because she's trying to interrupt me.

BUTTERFIELD: If you're going to screen 24 million people at the ports of entry, you need the inspectors, the commuter lanes, the inspection points at the airports, the kiosks for exit to allow you to do that in a safe and efficient and effective manner.

Until we have that, until we have the funding for that, until we have the resources in place to make that possible, what we're really doing is providing a false sense of security and that's what I object to.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIPS: You're starting to see a retaliation, too. Now Brazil now saying, Hey, if you're a U.S. citizen, guess what? We're going to take your photograph, we're going to fingerprint you. It's going to be interesting to see the domino effect.

Jeanne and Dan, I hate to leave it here. We could keep talking about this, obviously. It's a hot button issue. I guess a hot fingerprint issue we could say. We'll be talking again as this goes forward. Thank you, both.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired January 5, 2004 - 14:15   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, stick out your finger and smile. More now on the fingerprinting and photographing of visitors to the U.S. A Homeland Security program that began today. We've been talking about it all afternoon. It's controversial, yes. And joining us from Washington to debate it, Dan Stein of FAIR, the Federation of American Immigration Reform. And Jeanne Butterfield of the American Immigration Lawyer's Association. Nice to have you both.
JEANNE BUTTERFIELD, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION: Thank you, Kyra.

DAN STEIN, FAIR: Good to be here.

PHILLIPS: Dan, let's start with you. Why do you think it's a good idea?

STEIN: FAIR's been pushing for a program like this now for about 20 years. And Congress has actually passed authorizing legislation for something similar years before 9/11. And now finally because of 9/11, it's finally getting done.

The U.S. is joining the standards of modern industrialized nations with information technologies to do something that's really important which is to match up an alien's arrival data with his or her departure data so we know whether someone has in fact left who has come in on a temporary visa has in fact left.

And if you're ever going to get a handle, not only on terrorists and be able to follow up on improved intelligence who you find people you may think would be a terrorist threat, but also ever control illegal immigration, you've got have to have an exit/entry system of this kind.

So we're very gratified that the administration is moving forward, salute Secretary Ridge. it's a great step, want to see it expanded, certainly it's going to be a challenge to get it on the land, ports of entry. But we're looking forward to that over the next 18 months or so.

PHILLIPS: Jeanne, are you saluting Secretary Ridge?

BUTTERFIELD: I'm afraid not, Kyra. Of course we all want our nation to be more secure. But I think does this really make us more secure? And dose it do more harm than good? And I think the program falls short on both counts.

Of course, we want to know who is coming here and tending to do us harm and to keep them out. But the point to do that at is at the point of visa issuance abroad, at the pre-inspection and clearance stations, and at the point of transport with passenger manifests. Our borders should be our last line of defense, not our first.

And again, security is only as good as the intelligence data that underlies this whole system. There are more than 20 databases that need to be combined and correlated. And I think as we've seen in recent days, our data bases are woefully inadequate. We are mismatching names, we are declaring terrorist alerts for grandmas and little kids.

And when you multiply that by the magnitude of what's going into effect today, I think we have the potential to actually do ourselves harm economically and with our allies and friends abroad.

We have time concerns. This program has not been adequately funded. There aren't staff in place at all the ports of entry where this is going into place today to make sure that honest, law abiding visitors get in and come here to contribute to this great nation in the ways we want them to.

PHILLIPS: And, Dan, it does seem like there's a lot of information. If you start looking at every single visitor that's coming in and out of this country, it's a lot of time. a lot of money, a lot of resources. What about the situation where maybe their name is similar to another name that appeared on a list? It just seems like it's got a lot of room for mistakes.

STEIN: Well, look, I'm not going to let Jeanne walk away with a fatalistic, pessimistic, it can't be done attitude because, look, this is the most powerful nation on Earth. We have hundreds of millions of credit card transactions every day in this country.

Look, our immigration system and the databases, the interoperability are obviously a mess. Everybody knows the immigration system is in chaos. But to make the argument that we can't important steps forward introducing new technology, collecting important data and acting on that information because we've had a legacy of a chaotic system that's been torpedoed by commercial interests and immigration lawyers and other people doesn't mean -- I mean we've got to start somewhere.

And if we don't move forward with this, our society will never have the kind of border inspections procedures needed over the next 30 years to deal with the incredible crush of migration pressure from all over the world. This is an age of modern mobility. People are on the move.

Everybody who's used the visit system is saying, Hey, this is easy. It's a quick fingerprint scan, people don't have any problem with the technologies. They're comfortable using it. It takes only a couple of minutes. Yes, there's going to be glitches when you first implement a system like this.

But good grief. I mean at the least, this is what we can do in the wake of 9/11. There is so much more that needs to be done on top of U.S. visit if we're ever going to make our immigration system secure.

PHILLIPS: Jeanne, we are dealing with a brand new world, a whole different type of threat. I mean you would think as an American you would say, OK, you're right. No matter what, we should do whatever we can to protect our safety.

BUTTERFIELD: Well, I think what we need are security measures that are both smart and effective. We need to be more secure and we need to make sure the intelligence and the data that we're gathering is applied at the places that it can be effective.

To merely collect fingerprints and photographs on 24 -- at this point -- 24 million people who come into our country each year, doesn't tell us anything necessarily useful. It doesn't tell us that the person who didn't leave on time is a grandma who got ill or a kid with an ear infection. We've just compiled massive amounts of information...

(CROSSTALK)

BUTTERFIELD: ... intelligence that can allow us to know who's coming over and intending to do us harm and to keep them out at point of visa issuance, at the point of pre-inspection, and, finally, yes, at the land border. But we need to put the things into place that make this be a smart and effective system. We haven't done that so far.

STEIN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) what Jeanne is trying to do is say let's only deploy resources to find known terrorists and not worry about immigration compliance. If people come and overstay visas...

(CROSSTALK)

STEIN: If you're ever going to be able to actually enforce the terms of a visa in this country, and this is so key. It's fundamental component of every aspect of U.S. immigration law and compliance.

(CROSSTALK)

STEIN: I must be hitting a nerve here because she's trying to interrupt me.

BUTTERFIELD: If you're going to screen 24 million people at the ports of entry, you need the inspectors, the commuter lanes, the inspection points at the airports, the kiosks for exit to allow you to do that in a safe and efficient and effective manner.

Until we have that, until we have the funding for that, until we have the resources in place to make that possible, what we're really doing is providing a false sense of security and that's what I object to.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIPS: You're starting to see a retaliation, too. Now Brazil now saying, Hey, if you're a U.S. citizen, guess what? We're going to take your photograph, we're going to fingerprint you. It's going to be interesting to see the domino effect.

Jeanne and Dan, I hate to leave it here. We could keep talking about this, obviously. It's a hot button issue. I guess a hot fingerprint issue we could say. We'll be talking again as this goes forward. Thank you, both.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com