So that's why they let him in...
Apparently, the Immigration and Naturalization Act contains a "Gerry Adams loophole," devised by Ted Kennedy specifically for Adams and, according to Joel Mowbray, put into dangerous general practice by the State Department. The Act says that "advocating terrorism, through oral or written statements is usually not a sufficient ground for finding an applicant ineligible."
I don't see how any of this even applies to Adams himself. He has not only advocated terrorism, but is an unrepentant member of a terrorist organization and the leader of its faux-legitimate political front organization. Any way you slice it, it's inconsistent with the US's stance against terrorism to allow a figure like that to roam the land, shaking hands, kissing babies, raising funds, etc. Yet I don't think it's desirable, nor even remotely possible, to seek to deny entry to every single misguided soul who has ever been seduced into approving of or supporting the cause of his despicable comrades, even if they have expressed themselves "through oral or written statements." I'm afraid the same goes for guys named Mohammed, as long as they really are scrutinized rigorously to determine whether they might pose a plausible danger. (Oh yeah, and deny, detain, or track them once this determination is made.) These are the the steps that don't appear to be taken thoroughly or consistently enough.
Of course, unsavory as it is, Adams's physical presence doesn't endanger any Americans (not directly anyway-- some unfortunate American could get caught in an IRA "operation" partially funded by these activities.) It's undeniable, however, that they do continue to let some truly dangerous people in. "In the 12 months after 9/11," Mowbray writes, "State knowingly gave visas to 79 applicants whom [sic] it knew were in the FBI's TIP OFF database (a watch list of those for whom there's reasonable suspicion of terrorist ties.)" There's no excuse for that, whatever the Immigration Act may say.
In all honesty, I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I'm all for erring on the side of caution when it comes to determining who is likely to try to blow us up once they get here. On the other, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of ideological litmus tests, even when it comes to immigration. As I see it, what's lacking isn't a more stringent definition of the limits of visa eligibility, but a more effective process of investigating and screening out those who are likely to pose a threat. This system is clearly broken, but no amount of definitional tinkering will fix it. Removing the word "not" from the above-quoted sentence would be of little practical value.
My own experience with the INS and the visa application and processing system has been one of endless, tedious screw-ups caused by poor communication amongst departments, general incompetence, and ludicrous procedures that plainly run in the face of common sense. The various departments involved (The State Department, Justice Department, INS and SSA) seemed hardly able to communicate with each other at all; none of them recognize each other's documents or directives; each almost seems to be in a state of denial that the others exist. In the midst of my routine fiancee visa-marriage-adjustment of status process, everything ground to a halt because of a data entry error at the port of entry and a dysfunctional data base. The fact that my wife had two last names (a maiden name and a married one) apparently caused a total meltdown of the INS computer system, which is extremely odd for a process solely dedicated to dealing with marriage visas. Most irritating of all, perhaps, is the fact that government personnel now routinely use 9/11 as an excuse for just about any screw-up or problem.
It all eventually worked out, and, irritating though it was, I didn't really mind having to jump through some hoops and riding out the disordered process. We had nothing to hide, and I knew it would only be a matter of time. I'm glad they check out people like us to make sure we're not trying to scam the system. But I couldn't help thinking: if they can't keep track of two people who return to their offices day after day begging to be kept track of, how the hell can they handle the cases where someone is trying to evade detection? And while they were putting the little English country girl with the provocatively-placed ankh tattoo through the ringer for the umpteenth time, or shuffling through the 300 plus pages of photocopied financial records that I had to file each time we talked to anyone, I couldn't help wondering whether Mohammad Atta had this much trouble. I'd bet he didn't.
The INS is a bit like an elementary school with an elaborate after-school activities program but no books. It's a case of misplaced priorities. A great deal of time, effort, and resources are wasted on relatively trivial matters, while the important stuff appears to be neglected. I'd say at least some of the resources they devote to investigating little English country girls and their rock and roller husbands ought to be diverted to identifying applicants who are on the FBI's most-wanted list. Just a suggestion.
Posted by Dr. Frank at November 13, 2002 01:54 PM | TrackBack