U.S. Government Increasingly Blocking Entry at the Border Because of Ideology, ACLU Says (7/12/2006)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: media@aclu.orgACLU and NYCLU Release Government Records on "Ideological Exclusion"
Policy
NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil
Liberties Union today released new documents that indicate the government is
broadly interpreting and using a controversial Patriot Act power known as the
"ideological exclusion" provision to block people from entering the country. The
ACLU is concerned that the provision is increasingly being used to target
foreign scholars and others whose politics the government disfavors.
"The
American public suffers when our government abuses anti-terrorism laws to shut
out voices and ideas that it doesn’t want us to hear," said ACLU attorney
Melissa Goodman. "America has a rich tradition of robust academic debate. The
government dishonors that tradition when it censors ideas at the border."
The
ACLU and NYCLU obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) lawsuit filed in coordination with PEN American Center and the American
Association of University Professors (AAUP). Although the documents are heavily
redacted, the records suggest that the government used the ideological exclusion
provision to exclude from the country, among others, an Italian woman residing
in Colombia, a mother and daughter residing in Canada, a businessman from
Venezuela, and a woman from Costa Rica. The names of the individuals have been
redacted.
The ideological exclusion provision permits the government to
exclude anyone from the country who, in the government’s view, "endorses or
espouses" terrorism or "persuades others" to support terrorism. While the
provision is nominally directed at terrorism, the government appears to be using
the provision to censor and manipulate debate, said the ACLU.
Other
documents released through the FOIA confirm that the Departments of State and
Homeland Security are interpreting the law broadly. One document states that the
law is directed at those who voice "irresponsible expressions of opinion."
Another states, somewhat bizarrely, that an individual can be excluded under the
provision even if he or she endorsed terrorism unintentionally.
"It is
wholly inappropriate for immigration officials to keep out people whose politics
they don’t like," said Donna Lieberman, NYCLU Executive Director. "Barring the
doors is not the way a democracy deals with its critics."
Little is known
about the specific incidents included in the new documents, but the ACLU pointed
to several recent cases of high-profile individuals who have been excluded from
the United States for what appear to be ideologically motivated reasons,
including:
- In June, 75 South Korean activists were denied visas as U.S. and South Korean
officials met for free trade negotiations in Washington, DC. The South Korean
farmers and trade unionists had hoped to voice their opposition to the draft
free trade agreement.
- In June, Professor Yoannis "John" Milios of the
National Technical University of Athens was blocked from presenting a paper
entitled "How Class Works" at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Though he visited the United States as recently as 2003, upon arriving at JFK
airport in New York he was detained and interrogated about his politics. After
several hours, he was told that he would have to return to Athens.
- In May,
London-based Hip Hop artist M.I.A. revealed that she was denied a visa to come
work with American music producers on her next album. News reports indicate that
the Sri Lankan-born artist was excluded because government officials concluded
that some of her lyrics are overly sympathetic to the Tamil Tigers and the
Palestinian Liberation Organization.
- In March, Iñaki Egaña, a Basque
historian from Spain, arrived at JFK airport with his two children with the
intention of researching Basque people in the United States. Egaña and his
family were detained while Egaña was questioned about Mario Salegi, a Basque
political activist and writer whom Egaña had intended to study. After being
detained for 24 hours, Egaña and his family were sent back to Spain.
- In
Spring 2006, Dr. Waskar Ari, a scholar of race and ethnic studies and a member
of the Aymara indigenous people in Bolivia, was blocked from assuming a teaching
position at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Dr. Ari, who earned a Ph.D. in
history from Georgetown University, applied for a work visa after accepting the
Nebraska offer in June 2005. More than a year later, U.S. immigration officials
have yet to act on his visa application, but have since revoked his student
visa, leaving Dr. Ari inadmissible to the country. The State Department recently
said that Dr. Ari is being excluded on national security grounds, but it has not
offered any evidence to support this allegation.
- In 2005, Dora Maria Tellez,
who served as a Parliamentary leader and Minister of Health in Nicaragua in the
1980s, was forced to abandon her teaching post at Harvard University after the
government rejected her visa application. Tellez, who had visited the United
States several times up to 2001, was reportedly excluded because of her role in
the 1979 Nicaraguan revolution that overthrew the dictator Anastasio Somoza.
A lawsuit challenging the provision is currently pending in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. That lawsuit was filed by the ACLU,
NYCLU, AAUP, PEN and the American Academy of Religion, and charges that the
provision is being used to prevent United States citizens and residents from
hearing speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The groups filed the
lawsuit after Professor Tariq Ramadan was barred from entering the United
States, where he was offered a teaching position at the University of Notre
Dame. Although the government has since backed away from its claim that
Professor Ramadan is inadmissible under the Patriot Act provision, on June 23,
Judge Paul A. Crotty ruled that the government must act on Ramadan’s pending
visa application, and that it cannot bar non-citizens from the United States
simply because it disagrees with their political views.
"Ideological misuse
of the immigration laws has significant effects on the freedom of academic and
political debate inside the United States," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Director
of the ACLU’s National Security Program, who argued before Judge Crotty. "As the
court recognized, the government cannot use the immigration laws as a means of
silencing its critics and denying Americans the opportunity to hear dissenting
voices."
The Patriot Act’s ideological exclusion provision echoes laws that
were used in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s to bar those who were associated with the
Communist Party. Those laws were used to bar, among many other prominent
individuals, the writers Graham Greene, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Dario Fo, and
Pablo Neruda, and former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.
Attorneys in
the FOIA case are Goodman and Jaffer of the ACLU; Arthur N. Eisenberg of the
NYCLU; and New York immigration lawyer Claudia Slovinsky.
The documents
released today are online at www.aclu.org/exclusion.
|