So far I havent seen the common sense in your observation. But you claimed that networked databases do not exist or are not being populated. And I would argue that you are wrong. I would also argue that biometric data collection at any countries port of entry has added value to those databases. Once someone is in the database, from whatever source, movement patterns can be observed, and suspicious activity can be pulled out of seemingly harmless individual behaviour. If someone comes into southern mexico from central america claiming to seek to be a mexican tourist, then that same ID pops up at a US border crossing the next day, that individual could be flagged for watch. If he shows up at an airport for a flight, he could be questioned or detained or, wishfully thinking, deported. You would argue that such data exchange has no value. I disagree.
No, I am saying the databases are woefully incomplete, and it only takes a few dozen terrorists slipping through to destroy us. So, I am concluding that this plan leaves us no safer, for all the millions, maybe billions, that it will cost.
Now that you have made it clear you concluded from what I wrote that I was saying "networked databases do not exist or are not being populated" and "such data exchange has no value", it's understandable that you would fail to see the common sense and the logic that I expressed. You are not comprehending what is written, or you are purposely misrepresenting it as a cheap debate trick.
Either way, you're not holding up your end of the debate. And you're becoming tiresome.
Ultimately, fraud and corruption will doom this plan, represented by this bill, to fail, with many Americans at risk as a result.
This is a bad and dangerous bill, regardless of your sugarcoating.