|
NYT Calls for End to “Ideological Exclusion”Yesterday, The New York Times opined about “ideological exclusion” — the practice of denying foreign citizens entry into the U.S. based on their political views and associations, rather than any suspicious activity — writing: "The Bush administration eagerly revived the practice, barring numerous people from entering the country for speaking engagements or conferences or to teach at leading universities — all under a flimsily supported guise of fighting terrorism.Although “ideological exclusion” originated during the Cold War, when critics of U.S. policy were often excluded as supposed Communists, the misguided practice was revived in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The ACLU is challenging the exclusion of foreign scholars Tariq Ramadan and Adam Habib on behalf of academic, religious and professional organizations that have invited these scholars to speak in the U.S. The lawsuits charge that the Departments of State and Homeland Security are violating Americans' First Amendment right to hear Professors Ramadan and Habib's speech. The editorial highlights our cases, stating: Adam Habib, a well-known intellectual, professor and human rights activist from South Africa, was interrogated for seven hours and told that his visa had been revoked when he tried to enter the United States in 2006 for professional meetings. He was later told that his exclusion was based on terrorism-related grounds. He is challenging the action in court, but the government has yet to explain its precise legal or factual reasoning.The editors at the Times got it right: ideological exclusion is inconsistent with American values. The sad revival of this long-discredited practice should end, and ideological exclusion should be returned to the dustbin of history.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 10 Responses to "NYT Calls for End to “Ideological Exclusion”" |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Sep 19th, 2009 at 11:04am
It is possible that the president at the time practice of denying entry to visa status conferencee of universities felt that he was preventing terrorism because most of the terrorist were affiliated with these American Universities; terrorist language as a grading system for the universities percept-fist actions, asking your beloved president to leave diplomacy for a university's report that is not substantive is an illegal government. It's the Universities toga party, et tu Department of Defense.
The day should have came in their administration where the regulators (congress) stated to their agency elect acting outside of as a refuse is a senate hearing. Perfect analogy, an agency with jurisdiction claims unanswered as being regulated as functional by statement to congress of one anomaly of many as an agancy stride.
Sep 20th, 2009 at 1:17pm
Since 911 the governement uses terrorism as an excuse to act like a police state.
Sep 20th, 2009 at 3:59pm
Would the ACLU defend osama bin laden?
Sep 21st, 2009 at 9:31am
ACLU IS BULLSH!T WHAT RIGHT DO U HAVE TO TRY AND REMOVE PRAYER FROM THE MILITARY. WHAT FUKING RIGHT DO YOU HAVE TO REMOVE MILITARY SHAPED HEADSTONES FROM CEMETARIES EVERYONE IN ACLU IS FUKING RETARDED, TO HE11 IF I EVER SAVE UR LIVES WHEN WE GET ATTACKED ON OUR HOME FRONT
Did you know that the ACLU has filed a suit to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed and another suit to end prayer from the military completely. They're making great progress. The Navy Chaplains can no longer mention Jesus' name in prayer thanks to the wretched ACLU and our new administration.
Sep 21st, 2009 at 1:55pm
IDEOLOGICAL EXCLUSION IS NOT JUST A FOREIGN AFFAIR
U.S. government warrantless surveillance is being deployed as a pretext to harass and censor U.S. citizens right here at home. The evidence:
http://nowpublic.com/world/how-u-s-spy-ops-censor-web -political-speech
http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass -and-censor
Why does the ACLU have its head in the sand when it comes to U.S. government abuses of its own citizens -- DOMESTIC TERRORISM ENABLED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES?
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vi gilante-network-terrorizes-america
http://NowPublic.com/scrivener
Sep 22nd, 2009 at 11:34am
I think that I would let any speaker who wants to come to the USA as long as they are inviteed and as long as the audience is allowed to ask questions related to the subject they are bringing. I would not let them if they just want to indoctrinate.
Sep 22nd, 2009 at 11:44am
Freedom of speech is only for APPROVED speech. Bush and Obama would want it no other way!!!!
Sep 22nd, 2009 at 1:04pm
LANCE CORPORAL USMC, please research before posting. You lose credibility when you continue to spread rumors that have been discredited for 5+ years. Please see
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp
http:// www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/02/chain-email/no -aclu-lawsuit-over-cross-shaped-headstones/
http://www.factchec k.org/2009/07/aclu-and-cemetary-crosses/
http://www.truthorfict ion.com/rumors/a/aclu-markers.htm
Stop spreading the rumor and tell the person who told you about this to stop.
Sep 22nd, 2009 at 4:47pm
To All People Living in The United States of America, this Country was built upon The Constitution of America, not the laws or religious beliefs of other Countries. Yes, all Men are Created Equal, but under our laws and belief’s not yours. Everyone is welcome to live here but you should be will and accepting of our beliefs and not to try to force your belief’s upon The United States of America. You need to learn our Culture and language not the other way around. If we came to your Country you would expect us to learn and abide by your ways. So now that all the cards are laid out on the table and Thanksgiving is upon us, live by our way. It was very unfortunate that the real Americans “The American Indians” were forced out by all of the other Countries that came to settle here, but that is the past and now we are in the present. Get over yourselves and stop taking away The United States of America!
Nov 9th, 2009 at 9:16am
Only United States citizens are protected by the United States Constitution and The Bill Of Rights.
I think maybe you are confusing the One World Government Enslavement Document with the US Constitution.