US Government Fails to Track People Leaving the Country
Since 9/11, the discussion over shortcomings of data collection for air travel has been recurring due to concerns over security and accuracy of information.
The government is currently uncertain as to the exact number and identity of people who have overstayed their visas due to lapses in the current tracking system.
“A 2013 report by the Government Accountability Office said the Department of Homeland Security had more than one million ‘unmatched’ arrival records, meaning that those records could not be checked against other information showing that the individuals had left the country”, according to The New York Times.
Advocates of a biometric system, which utilizes iris and fingerprint scanning, claim that such a system would provide necessary improvements in security and data collection.
Congress became especially interested in integrating a more sophisticated entry and exit process following the 9/11 attacks when it became known that two of the hijackers had overstayed their visas. Since then, Congress has put repeated pressure on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop a biometric system.
Biometric data collection has been integrated into the entry of non-US citizens but a similar process is lacking to verify individuals leaving the country.
Despite congressional pressure, DHS has failed to make amendments to the exit process due to a lack of clarity on cost and logistics following multiple inconclusive pilot programs that have been met with heavy resistance from airlines.
Airlines and other opponents of biometric exit screening cite high cost of implementation along with skepticism towards an increase in security from the current means of data collection that depends on biographic information found on one’s passport.
Security Identity & Biometrics Association CEO, Janice Kephart, estimated a cost of $400–600 million for first year implementation for air and sea ports, which she suggests could be paid for through a fee increase of $10 for visa applicants.
It should be noted that such a quote ignores the cost of adding tracking to land travel. According to Pew, the majority of individuals overstaying visas are from bordering countries:
“The nation with the most visitors who failed to leave at the end of their authorized stay was Canada, followed by Mexico”.
Kephart claims that a “2009 study found that of the 29,999 processed [through biometric screening], there were 175 watchlist hits and 150 visa overstay hits, totaling a 1.10 percent hit rate… The current name-based approach to exit does not verify that people are who they say they are, or negate human error.” Such an error occurred with one of the 2013 Boston Bombers who failed to be stopped and questioned due to a misspelling of his name.
Former Department of Homeland Security official, Stewart Verdery explains:
“The people you’re most concerned about — terrorists and criminals — are the people who would have gone to the greatest lengths to avoid biographic checks.”
Opposition to funding a new exit process as a means of deterring terrorism maintains that money would be better spent investing in intelligence agencies for terrorist prevention.
Beyond security concerns, data collection is cited as another benefit of improved tracking.
According to the DHS, a rough estimate of the 2015 fiscal year calculated almost half a million, 1.07% of visa holders, were suspected of overstaying their visa.
Without a more technologically advanced means of data collection, verifiable and comprehensive numbers remain unavailable.
“‘The only way you know which people have overstayed their visa is by knowing who has left and honored the terms of their visa,’ says Mark Krikorian, who heads the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that wants stronger immigration enforcement.”
But once again, opponents challenge the benefits of improved data, explaining that even if a list of overstay visa holders was compiled, lack of manpower and high cost would prevent government entities from tracking down and enforcing visa regulations.
And so the argument continues on, creating more friction than progress despite demands from Congress in 2004, 2007, and 2009 for the DHS to establish an automated biometric entry and exit system.
Although the ability of a biometric system to heighten safety or deter the overstay of visas remains inconclusive, it seems clear that it would provide more comprehensive data on the travel of non-US citizens along with a more advanced means of pinpointing individuals traveling with fraudulent documents.
You can find me on Twitter.
