The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claimed Wednesday -- based on government documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request -- that officials are misusing the PATRIOT Act's "ideological exclusion" provision to keep academics who oppose the U.S. government's agenda out of the country. (See documents at bottom of page)
"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 filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, arguing that Section 411 "is being used to prevent United States citizens and residents from hearing speech that is protected by the First Amendment" after Tariq Ramadan was blocked from accepting a teaching position at the University of Notre Dame.
Section 411 of the PATRIOT Act, known as the "ideological exclusion" provision, allows the government to deny entry to anyone who has used their "position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization..."
The group claims the government is stretching that provision to exclude scholars like Ramadan, who have not supported terrorists but who do oppose current U.S. policies, including:Dora Maria Tellez, who served as a parliamentary leader and minister of health in Nicaragua in the 1980s, was unable to accept a teaching position at Harvard after she was denied entry under the "ideological exclusion" in 2005, allegedly because of her participation in the 1979 Nicaraguan revolution;
In the spring of 2006, Dr. Waskar Ari, a professor of race and ethnic studies and a member of the Aymara indigenous people in Bolivia, lost a teaching position at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln after he was denied entry, according to the ACLU, on "national security" grounds;
Professor Yoannis "John" Milios of the National Technical University of Athens was denied entry into the U.S. in June 2006 to present a paper entitled "How Class Works." The ACLU claims he was "detained and interrogated about his politics" for "several hours" and then sent back to Athens.
But the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) believes foreign scholars have suffered no unjust discrimination because they have no fundamental right to enter the United States.
"It seems to me the ACLU is taking the position that admission to the United States is an entitlement as opposed to a privilege," said John Keeley, CIS director of communications, "and any attempt by the U.S. government to exercise discretion in who they admit is somehow an infringement on human rights.
"What I don't understand is the mindset that some professor from Lebanon has an entitlement to come teach at Harvard," Keeley added.
Visas are denied for security reasons, Keeley argued, not as a method to stop ideological agendas.
"In a post-9/11 world, extraordinary discretion has to be used," said Keeley. "We don't believe anyone has a fundamental entitlement to come into our country, but that it is indeed a privilege and a unique privilege."
Keeley said that the U.S. is unique in its position because of the sheer volume of traffic across its borders. Having too few limits on who can come into the country is a "grave, grave security threat."
"We have 5 million border crossings a year. We issue 10 million tourist visas a year. These are unrivaled numbers, and that demand places extraordinary stress on the adjudicators," said Keeley. "Our biggest concern is that, in the issuance of those visas, what has long been in place is a climate of rubber-stamping, and that's how you get tragedies like 9/11."
The majority of the 9/11 hijackers came to the U.S. under legitimate visas, Keeley noted. According to the 9/11 Commission report, the 19 hijackers submitted 24 applications and received 23 visas.
"They should never have been awarded visas in the first place," Keeley concluded.
Keeley's group not only believes the ACLU's position is misguided, but also that additional restrictions on who can and cannot enter the U.S. are needed.
"We think a good deal more needs to be put in place," said Keeley. "When you consider that 40 percent of illegal immigration in the United States comes from visa overstays, again, I think that underscores the point that we have a great deal of work to do."
But Jameel Jaffer, the deputy director of the ACLU's National Security Program who argued Ramadan's case in federal court, is primarily concerned with protecting the free expression of ideas.
"Ideological misuse of the immigration laws has significant effects on the freedom of academic and political debate inside the United States," Jaffer said. "[T]he government cannot use the immigration laws as a means of silencing its critics and denying Americans the opportunity to hear dissenting voices."
Keeley acknowledges the ACLU's concerns but argues that the U.S. is not in a position to consider them as their first priority.
"I would take concerns like the ACLU's far more seriously if we put up an adequate system of entry/exit protocols, but we are years away from that," Keeley said.
"Basically, anybody that comes in legally on a visa has a real good chance, if they want to just stick around and not have anyone from the government come look [for] them," said Keeley. "That's the cold, hard reality."
Make media inquiries or request an interview regarding this article.
Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-brief.
E-mail a comment or news tip to Alison Espach.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
