+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

stacey66

Newbie
Dec 30, 2012
3
0
hello everyone. I'm wondering if refugee prints are kept forever (even after citizenship has been granted).
the articles about the new refugee bill have some minister saying that once a refugee becomes a citizen, then the prints a destroyed. I have a hard time believing this and would like to know what others think.
 
The only time I can think someone worrying about their finger prints are if they have something to hide (such as trying to rob a bank or doing something illegal). Otherwise there should be no concern about authorities taking finger prints and keeping it for their records indefinitely.
 
well it would be an invasion of privacy. i mean, someone just entering this country for two weeks and their prints are on file forever. i can understand keeping it there until the person leaves but forever is an abuse in my opinion. (unless the person has done something and is convicted but thats a whole other affair)
 
stacey66 said:
well it would be an invasion of privacy. i mean, someone just entering this country for two weeks and their prints are on file forever. i can understand keeping it there until the person leaves but forever is an abuse in my opinion. (unless the person has done something and is convicted but thats a whole other affair)

As a result of September 11 there has been a lot of changes with respect to security, its only fair that governments take precautions to protect itself and its citizens from any unforeseen events. This also means making the process more transparent on who enters and exit their borders. If someone is entering the country for 2 weeks, provided the person has nothing to hide they should not be worried about giving their finger prints. Its just standard security procedures.

Invasion of privacy would be something like groping between your legs when doing a security search.
Invasion of privacy would also be touching someone inappropriately.
Invasion of privacy would be breaking into someones house or car.
Invasion of privacy would also be searching your house without warrant and proper documentation.
 
regardless of whether you like it or not, as far as I gather, the answer to my original question is yes. correct?
 
For the purpose of simply answering your question, the answer is definite YES
 
bernard17 said:
interesting. does this mean that before 911, fingerprints were not taken?

I wouldn't say finger prints were not taken. Technology has also changed over the years and so has the level and types of crime, therefore fingerprints are made mandatory for the safety and security of everyone.

Besides fingerprints don't give a blue print of your life history since birth. If you are innocent then whats there to hide?
 
oh no i agree. immigrants should be fingerprinted. specially refugees. i don;t want to seem cold hearted but some refugee come from really bad countries. like sudan for example. who knows what a person that has been subjected to that kind of violence (potentially) might have on their mind. i'm just surprised that before 911 refugee were not systematically fingerprinted.