Youll get my fingerprints from my cold, lifeless hand

By Nick Bibby

Benjamin Franklin once commented that “He who would surrender liberty in the name of security deserves neither.”

It would be interesting to see what he ― or Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, or many others ― would make of the current hysteria over immigration which is leading to ever more complex procedures for foreigners living in Korea.

It is, of course, quite reasonable for any nation to want to know who’s entering the country. Equally, there is good reason to restrict the movement of convicted criminals who may pose a threat in a guest nation.

However, there must be not just a balance between security and liberty, but a presumption of the latter. A Sept. 9 opinion piece by Seok Dong-Hyon, commissioner of the Korean Immigration Service made the argument that following terrorist atrocities around the world, nations should be more concerned about the admission of foreign nationals.

It's an interesting idea. Just to start with, none of those involved in either of the instances he cites ― the 9/11 attacks in New York and the 7/7 bombings in London ― had criminal records.

They were living quite legally in those respective countries. Having their fingerprints at immigration would have done nothing to prevent either tragedy. So let's scotch that argument before it even gets started.

The next one is a little more complex. In essence it runs like this: we don't want criminals from abroad coming to Korea. Very sensible in many ways, I wouldn't want a mass murderer or drug lord in my home either. However, there's a problem.

The only way to know that someone is a criminal is if they've been tried and convicted, otherwise they're as innocent as the day they were born. If they've been convicted and repaid their debt to society then they have earned the right to be treated like every other citizen; namely, to be presumed innocent.

This raises a further question; why fingerprint foreigners? Why not everyone? Why not just certain nationalities? Why only those over 17 _ Israel and elsewhere provides plenty of evidence of children committing atrocities. Why foreigners?

The only answer is a presumption of guilt. It is assumed that foreigners cannot be trusted. Otherwise, all residents, foreign and domestic, would be required to submit fingerprints ― and DNA samples, presumably.

Easier still would be to electronically tag everyone from birth and have them followed and tracked for their entire life.

Better still would be to imprison everyone the moment they were born and keep them under constant surveillance.

Perhaps CCTV in homes would work although it's a tough call, does going to the bathroom count as public indecency if a government official is watching?

The issue is ultimately very simple, fingerprinting foreigners assumes criminal intent. The overwhelming evidence is against that assertion. Are there foreigners who commit crimes? Yes. Are there Koreans who do so?

There are currently about 1.2 million foreigners residing in South Korea and they are overwhelmingly productive members of society, upstanding, helpful, curious about their new home and willing to help.

To brand them all as potential criminals is not just unjust, it's foolish.

The reality is this; with an aging population and a falling birthrate, Korea needs immigrants. Whether it's in low skilled jobs that Koreans no longer want to do, whether it's bringing in expertise from overseas or whether it's for specialized industries, Korea needs migrant labor.

Making that process ever more complex, evermore intimidating and evermore based on the presumption of guilt is poor manners on the part of any host.

If you went to a friend's house for dinner to discover that they'd hidden all their valuables to ensure that you didn't steal them, you'd be understandably offended. That's what compulsory fingerprinting feels like.

Under other forms of law it's illegal to presume guilt. For example labor law contains the so-called prohibition on the predetermination of non-observance which makes it illegal to take money from an employee as a deposit on the basis they may do something wrong in the future.

If there is genuinely a security need to use fingerprints then simply singling out foreigners seems to be an odd way to address the issue. Why fingerprint the fresh-faced Canadian graduate and not the Korean national returning from six months in the Pashtun Valley?

What about the Korean national returning after 25 years spent in a maximum security prison overseas? What about someone who just looks a bit dodgy? The point of the presumption of innocence is that it is universal.

Suspecting foreign nationals simply by dint of their being foreigners is not only racist, it's reckless.

Nick Bibby is guest professor of global studies at Dong-A University, deputy CEO of RightsWatch Korea and co-author of ``The Rights of Workers in Korea.” He can be reached at nick.bibby@gmail.com. The views expressed in the above article are the author’s own and do not reflect the editorial policy of The Korea Times.