Non United States citizens beware, you can be denied entry i

[MarkB]

Non United States citizens beware, you can be denied entry if your mother belonged to an organization in her homeland that Home Land Security didn't/doesn't like.

From Slate:

Keep Out
Border control Joe McCarthy would have loved.
By David Cole
Posted Wednesday, May 11, 2005, at 11:40 AM PT



What if Congress resurrected one of the most ill-conceived laws of the McCarthy era and nobody noticed? In 1952, the House and Senate passed the McCarran-Walter Act, which created an ideological litmus test for entry to the United States by barring foreigners with disfavored ideas or affiliations. The law denied admission to communists and anarchists, among others. For four decades, it was invoked to keep out hundreds of people, including writers (Carlos Fuentes, Gabriel García Márquez), scholars (Belgian economist Ernst Mandel), politicians (Ireland's Gerry Adams, Nicaragua's Tomas Borge), and even a former NATO general (Italy's Nino Pasti). Congress repealed the McCarran-Walter Act in 1990 with great fanfare about eliminating thought-control at the border.

But an attachment to a bill that supplements funds for Iraq, passed by Congress and now on the president's desk, would allow the United States once again to keep out and to deport foreign nationals not for their conduct, but for their politics—their ideas, their speech, and the groups with which they associate. Other attachments to the Iraq spending bill have gotten attention, for imposing mandatory standards on the issuance of driver's licenses and for altering the legal rules for asylum. But the expanded grounds for deportation and exclusion received virtually no discussion.

Where the McCarran-Walter Act's concern was communists and anarchists, the new law ostensibly focuses on terrorists. By comparison, it makes the Patriot Act look good. That law imposed guilt by association on those who provided material support to a short list of groups specifically designated as terrorist by the secretary of state. This one scraps the designated list for a definition of a terrorist organization so broad that it includes virtually any group that has ever threatened to use violence. Any foreigner can be deported for "endorsing or espousing terrorist activity," for "persuad[ing] others to … support a terrorist organization," for being a "member of a terrorist organization," and for being a "representative" of a "political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity." Under the Patriot Act, speech and membership in a terrorist group were grounds for preventing foreigners from entering the country, but not for deporting those who already live here and are protected by the First Amendment. The new law is also retroactive, so people can be deported today for things they did or said lawfully years ago. And punishment extends even to spouses and children, who may be expelled simply for having a spouse or parent who advocated a proscribed idea or belonged to a proscribed group.

What does all of this mean? According to the new law, an immigrant whose mother supported the African National Congress' lawful, nonviolent anti-apartheid work during the 1980s would be deportable today because the ANC fought apartheid with sabotage and other illegal acts of violence as well as with nonviolent protests. So would an immigrant who supported the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the Israeli military, the Nicaraguan contras, or the Palestinian Authority, all of which have illegally used or threatened to use weapons against people or property. Your only shot at a winning defense is to show that you had no idea that the group you supported ever engaged in violence. It doesn't matter if you can prove that you had no connection to the group's violent actions, or that the U.S. government also supports these groups. Indeed, in the same bill that includes these provisions, Congress allotted $5 million to help the Palestinian Authority with an audit.

Republicans sneaked the immigration language into the final Iraq spending bill in a closed conference. But it did not come out of nowhere. Wisconsin Republican James Sensenbrenner, chair of the judiciary committee, sought to introduce the same provisions as part of the Intelligence Reform Act, prompted last December by the 9/11 Commission Report. But the language was dropped so that the intelligence bill could pass by consensus. Sensenbrenner vowed to reintroduce his immigration language. In the Iraq bill, he found a vehicle that almost no one could vote against. The vote in the Senate was 100 to 0.

But all the blame cannot rest on Sensenbrenner and the Republican conferees. Liberal advocacy groups like the ACLU and the National Immigration Forum didn't make much noise about the changes to who can be deported and excluded. They chose instead to focus on the new standards for driver's licenses and asylum. That choice may have made strategic sense. The licensing scheme, with its intimation of a national ID card, potentially affects all of us. And while asylum affects only immigrants, applicants for asylum are more sympathetic than those who are labeled as terrorists.

From the perspective of safeguarding civil liberties, however, the expansion of the grounds for deportation is by far more egregious. Fifteen years ago, when Congress repealed the McCarran-Walter Act, it seemed that our lawmakers had finally learned a history lesson. Each time the law was invoked to bar a writer like Gabriel García Márquez or a politician like Gerry Adams, the person and his ideas got more attention than he had previously enjoyed. And each refusal of entry was widely decried as hypocrisy. Now, however, it appears that all Congress learned from history is that when you want to resurrect censorship at the border, you should do so while no one is looking.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sidebar
Return to article

The new law broadly defines as a terrorist anyone who has ever illegally used or threatened to use a weapon against a person or property, civilian or noncivilian. Two or more of these "terrorists" make a "terrorist organization."

David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, is author of Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism.

So if I am a member of the New Democratic Party (Left of centre party)here in Canada does that mean I may not be allowed into the United States. Or if I have written a letter to the editor about the war in Iraq, I also wouldn't be allowed entry in the U.S.?

And my father who wasn't anti-American (his father was an American) wrote letters also about U.S. policies and global behaviour. Because I am his son does that mean I won't be allowed in the U.S.

This is going to far, what form of democracy are you talking about in the United States. Are you affraid of ideas, what someone (re: alien) might have thought at one time. Are the sins of the parents going to be the sins of the children?

MarkB

[OnTheMoor]

So if I am a member of the New Democratic Party (Left of centre party)here in Canada does that mean I may not be allowed into the United States.

You're a member of the NDP!!!???
j/k

[MarkB]

The operative word is "if." Actually NDP stands for New D Personalized, a new whistle by yet an unknown new whistle maker

MarkB

[Jack]

I went to Canada one time, and they wanted to see an ID, but I told them I was underage and didn't have an ID, so they let me in anyway.

This was (almost obviously) before 9/11.

[MurphyStout]

UH OH! That means I could be denied entry because both of my parents are members of the terrorist group the CTA. (California Teachers Association)

[Flyingcursor]

Many years ago, before "9/11" a friend of my wife went to Ottawa for a Saturday jaunt. He's from Singapore and didn't take his passport. He actually had to wait for someone to bring him his passport from Kalamazoo before they'd let him in. Of course that's a little different then the intent of the thread but I thought I mention it.

[rasp]

it appears to me that the world sees the people and government of the US as the most vile. so the only people wishing enter the country would be the terrorists this legislation is supposed to prevent. lets face it they have a disney world in the EU.

[mukade]

Well, that's the annual Gerry Adams' family trip to Disneyland down the tubes.

Mukade

[Jeff Stallard]

Imagine that it was your house. What if some group with which you disagree (Moonies, Neo-nazis, etc.) knocked on your door and wanted to come in for a while? Would you let them in?

Remember that we're talking about NON-citizens here. Yes, it does seem a bit heavy-handed to me, but if you're not a citizen of a particular country, then being allowed into that country is a priviledge, not a right.

I don't like how the kids of undesirable parents are being disallowed though. I thought that, in this country, we judged you by what you do, not by who your father was. But still, it's in a nations rights to deny access to any non-citizen for any reason, so I can't get too upset.

[anniemcu]

Interesting, isn't it, that there is no recognition of the fact that people sometimes change their minds, sometimes even..(gasp!) learn from mistakes, or evern worse, (gasp! gasp!) don't agree with the maj/min/ority in power at the time. That automatically makes them terrorists in the present American Governmental "mind"set.

The horror of it! People wanting to make up their own minds! Yikes! Too scarey!

[daveboling]

Interesting, isn't it, that there is no recognition of the fact that people sometimes change their minds, sometimes even..(gasp!) learn from mistakes, or evern worse, (gasp! gasp!) don't agree with the maj/min/ority in power at the time. That automatically makes them terrorists in the present American Governmental "mind"set.

Sure is; in fact, just the other day, Osama bin Somebody (don't want to be a complete name dropper , sent a very contrite letter of apology to Bush and the boys saying that he had completely missed the mark on the US intentions in the Middle East, and asked permission for himself, and a few close friends to tour the US on a good will mission.:roll:
Let's take another direction. Just for a hoot, lets say there is a group which distributes child lichen among themselves, and one of their members, a former member in fact, who had promised you that it had all been a terrible mistake, wanted to babysit your child. Would you forgive them their association with this group, and allow them to come into your home, without your constant supervision?
There are, in fact, many people who have past memberships in terrible groups who do change, and recant their past alliances. There are, also in fact, many people who misrepresent their position, and alliances, in order to gain admittance to places they intend to do harm. At what level would you have the US government place the bar on who is allowed into the country? No bar, but with monitoring of anyone with suspicions past alliances (many here have stated there is too must monitoring within the US borders already). No bar, and no monitoring (seems to me that one has been tried and failed the fall of 2001)? I can see that you are frustrated with where the US goverment has drawn a line, but I would sincerely like to know where you would draw it.
Please do not take this as a personal, or idealogical attack. I am hoping that someone will step up with ideas. Most always when there is a strong objection to a position, there is an idea on how the situation could be changed, for the better, in the objector's mind that just hasn't been stated yet.

The horror of it! People wanting to make up their own minds! Yikes! Too scarey!

What you think, and say is protected (within limits) by the US Constitution, including the right to change your mind, but the instances of deception in the past have made proving a changed heart difficult.

dave boling

[Jack]

Why do people love Disneyland? I have never been there but from what I hear, there are three hour lines and the price on everything is jacked up 200%.

[Jeff Stallard]

Interesting, isn't it, that there is no recognition of the fact that people sometimes change their minds, sometimes even..(gasp!) learn from mistakes

If a convicted pedophile moved next door, would you want to know about it? Where is the recognition that people can change their minds and learn from their mistakes? He might very well be a changed man. Are you going to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him babysit your kids?

[anniemcu]

Interesting, isn't it, that there is no recognition of the fact that people sometimes change their minds, sometimes even..(gasp!) learn from mistakes

If a convicted pedophile moved next door, would you want to know about it? Where is the recognition that people can change their minds and learn from their mistakes? He might very well be a changed man. Are you going to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him babysit your kids?

If someone who was trying to understand politics and social responsibility (yes, I know in practice they tend to be mutually exclusive, but in theory, they are related), attended meetings of a group that appeared to have righteousness on its side, but turned out to be a bunch of hotheads whom the original somebody decided were not going where he/she wanted to, moved in next door to you, do you think they should be harrassed because they once thought there was some good in Communism? (again, in theory, it has some very good points, even if in practice it has so far fallen victim to power mad individuals). Should they be denied the opportunity to live a decent life just because you don't know diddly about them and assume that they are "the enemy"? REally?

I'm all for caution and holding people responsible, but that isn't often the case in our immigration policy enforcement.

[Daniel_Bingamon]

What shocked me the other day is that our US media now referrs to the war as the "War on Extremism". I may just have to lauch a counterwar against mediocrity.

The Washington crowd (both parties in my opinion) have turned our constitution into a roll of toilet paper. And invitation on Ellis Island has been turned into a "Go home, we don't want any" sign.

What will become of the land of opportunity if there is no opportunity?

As far as religious freedom, you can be religious as long your religion is dead, unmoving, unchallenging.