The Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights and the Massachusetts Chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee have jointly invited Professor Adam Habib to be the keynote speaker at an event on August 5, 2008, because of his internationally recognized scholarship on the role social movements play in conflict situations, such as the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But if the federal government continues to deny Professor Habib a visa, he will not be able to attend.
In order to fight for a robust dialogue that is consistent with the First Amendment, our organizations are plaintiffs in an ACLU lawsuit seeking to lift the unconstitutional ban on Adam Habib. We will be in federal court tomorrow arguing this case.
We believe that at a time when the Middle East is such a critical focus of U.S. foreign policy, it is vitally important that public discussions take place about peaceful ways to resolve conflicts there. And we believe that Professor Habib’s involvement in the effort to transform South Africa into a democracy is directly applicable to the stated policy of the U.S. to spread democracy in the Middle East.
To deny an entry visa to Professor Adam Habib is to deny the public access to important approaches which have succeeded in resolving similar issues in other countries; approaches which deserve to be considered in resolving the problems in the Middle East. Presenting no legitimate reason to deny Dr. Habib an entry visa, the State Department clearly intends to deny the American public access to views which may not conform exactly to the Administration’s views. Besides violating the rights granted by our Constitution, what does that say about our country when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion?
Please join us in the fight for the right of every American to enjoy the vigorous protection of speech that is guaranteed by the Constitution.
I assume they have a better official reason for denying his visa than, “We don’t like his views.” Just curious.
sure sign of a sinister mind. but seriously, i’m not sure INS (i can never remember the newfangled name) has to provide a reason. border agents have a lot of discretion. they turned away my green card clad dutch cousin (high up lawyer in a big american corporation) with no explanation whatsoever. she was able to enter on her next try, but the point was made: border agents are little gods.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
They saw the Quakers as a threat.
<
p>Really.
<
p>Quakers.
The ACLU ( AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union ) Will go to bat for a foreigner but When I ( a natural born citizen with NATIVE blood ) asked them about challenging the Socialist Health Insurance Mandate on behalf of all the people of Massachusetts they couldn’t be bothered. I wonder why? Nice, Very Nice.
The Government denied Habib’s visa on the grounds that he was believed to have engaged in terrorist activity.
<
p>The Government’s position in the lawsuit, stripped of technicalities, is that the decision whether or not to admit an alien into the United States is exclusively one for the political branches of government, and that the courts have no power to review it. The Government also argues that in any case, Habib hardly needs to be physically in the country to have the opportunity to make his views known to his audience, and thus there is no First Amendment rationale for challenging Habib’s exclusion.
<
p>I think, without having done any actual research, this is a close call. On the one hand, it seems to me to be obviously true that there is no real barrier to the exchange of ideas between Habib and his audience in America, given the realities of modern communication technology. So is there any First Amendment rationale that requires the Government to allow Habib to attend academic conferences in the United States in person, assuming that Habib and the other participants could freely exchange thoughts and opinions even if he is cooling his heels in South Africa?
<
p>On the other hand, assuming for the moment that the Government is engaged in blatant viewpoint discrimination, its actions don’t accord with the spirit of the First Amendment, academic freedom, and other good policies, even if they are legal. But I certainly have no basis for doubting that the consul who denied the visa had reason to believe that Habib had engaged in terrorist activity. I’d be curious to know whether the Government has made public the factual basis for the consular decision to deny the visa. I assume everyone agrees that the Government may properly exclude someone who it has reason to believe has engaged in terrorist activity, right?
<
p>TedF
it in no way can replace the spark of personal conversation. a lot of the joy of conferences happens before and after the presentations, when people can mingle and strike up conversations. sure he can telecast a speech into the country. he could even post a youtube video. but that isn’t the same as a face-to-face exchange of ideas over the course of a day or longer. am i correct in thinking that not all courts allow people to testify from a remote location via video monitor? if some courts recognize the value of a witness being present to get the full measure of them and their ideas, then surely they can see the same value for a conference participant.
What first Amendment rights do non-US citizens have? Why does the ACLU have to pick such extreme cases to defend? Aren’t there some US citizens with problem you can go help?
<
p>U.S. citizens and residents from hearing speech that is protected by the First Amendment.