December 9, 2003
A TALE OF TWO BRITS.
Tony Willoughby of Willoughby & Partners, a firm of solicitors, sent the following letter to The Times of London in May 2003.
The head of IT at our law firm is a Muslim. He is a gentleman in every sense of the word. His fanaticism, if he has any, is restricted to cricket. Last Sunday he went on a business trip to California. On arrival at Los Angeles he was detained and interrogated on suspicion of being a terrorist.... "For the first 12 hours he was refused access to a telephone. After 16 hours, not having been given any food, he asked if he could have some. He was given ham sandwiches and, when he explained that he could not eat pork, was told: 'You eat what you are given.' He did not eat. He was eventually escorted back to the airport in handcuffs and deported.
In the December 8, 2003 edition of National Review, Mark Steyn, in his Happy Warrior column, told the following story:
The other week, a reader of Britain's Sunday Telegraph recounted a story. He's a British army veteran, now a helicopter pilot, who fell in love with an American. He married her, and they chose to live in the United States. He applied for a green card, but -- because of the length of time the government takes to process that application--was issued in the interim an "advance parole" that ould allow thim to move about and conduct his business.The first of these stories has become a cause celebre on the lunatic left (see here and here and here). Apparently, the left can't imagine any legitimate reason for stopping a British gentleman of Muslim heritage from entering the US ("Welcome to the country, Mr. Reid. Enjoy your stay") and considers it the ne plus ultra of barbarity to offer said gentleman a ham sandwich. The second story you'll probably never hear of again. (By the way, did you know that Anthony Lewis, erstwhile columnist for the New York Times, is the husband of Chief Justice Margaret Marshall currently of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, formerly chief counsel at Harvard University and the author of the SJC's recent gay marriage opinion?)In October, this gentlemen's wife had business at a trade fair in guangshou in soutehrn China, and he decided to accompany her. On their return to LAX, he was informed that his "advance parole" had just expired, was handcuffed, fignerprinted, tossed in jail for 24 hours, and then told that he would be put on the first plane back to Guangzhou. . . .
After some pleading, he was allowed to buy a $1,000 one-way ticket to London, where he is at present.
The similarities between the two stories, when added to the one evident difference -- the absense, that is, in the second story of the one fact upon which the left bases its conviction, in the first story, that a great injustice was done -- illustrates a basic truth about government. If the government seems to be acting more than usually malicious, and won't explain why, there is a good chance that it is using the appearance of malice to hide it's incompetence. For some reason, governments from Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the United States would much rather seem oppressive than dumb, not that they can't be both.
More to the point, why do people seem to assume that the government has some duty to allow people into the country just because they want to enter? I've no doubt that his being barred from entry was an annoyance to the first gentelman, and I'm sure his separation from his family is causing the second gentleman some pain. Nonetheless, there is no right to enter the country, particularly if, as appears to be the case in the latter story, the terms of your earlier admission have expired. Nor is control of our borders a minor issue. I've asked this question before, but have we really reached the point where some Americans consider it unconstitutional for their government to be mean?
Posted by David Cohen at December 9, 2003 10:44 PMDon't know anything about the specifics of the British helicopter pilot, but I do know that aliens who do not have green cards should never leave the US unless they KNOW they can get back in. There have been many cases of families separated when husbands or wives have been detained in Niagara Falls after a day trip to Canada - and this was prior to 9/11. The same thing happens when foreign brides try to go home for a family visit without getting their facts straight. People should know better.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 9, 2003 11:38 PM"have we really reached the point where some Americans consider it unconstitutional for their government to be mean?"
Well shouldn't Americans expect their government to operate fairly and with actions that make sense?
M Ali Choudhury
Americans "should" expect their government to abide by the law. The law may or may not make sense, may or may not be "fair". If the law is nonsensical or unfair, we should change the law until we get it right. Immigration officials should not be attempting to change it "on the fly"
As to David Cohen's question regarding common understanding of what is constitutional I would answer that yes that is the "point we have reached"
The left is upset because they feel there are people who would set different standards for Muslim immigrants than others. Their fear is well founded because I am one of those people.
Posted by: h-man at December 10, 2003 8:16 AMHaving reread the post, I can only conclude that my faith in you all is so great that I think I don't actually have to make my main point.
The left is upset because that nice Muslim IT director wasn't allowed into the country, the government was mean to him in the process of kicking him out and insulting/oppressive in offering him a ham sandwich to eat. My take, buttressed by the more or less identical treatment of another Brit who was most likely not Muslim and who had been living in the US, is that what appears to be government oppression is more likely either incompetence or just gracelessness. In particular, I would guess that very few Americans, less than 5%, know that Muslims don't eat pork. In fact, as that is one of the few things Americans do tend to know about Judaism, they would be astonished to learn that the same is true of Islam.
As for Ali's question, I think the answer is no. The best we can hope for is a brusque competence when dealing with the government to friendly incompetence or, more often, hostile incompetence. I don't see any reason to believe that in either case the government was wrong to keep these men out of the country. But, more to the point, offering someone a ham sandwich, or even being far nastier, is not unconstitutional, nor does it invite rational comparisons to Hitler's Germany.
Posted by: David Cohen at December 10, 2003 9:47 AMJim's right about #2. I had a British colleague run into this kind of trouble 1n 1997. He went to visit a customer in the Toronto area without getting his advance parole renewed and couldn't get back into the country. It took us 6 weeks and several thousand dollars in legal fees to get it straightened out. I found the INS to be the most arrogant and officious of all US bureaucracies (quite an accomplishment).
Posted by: Jeff at December 10, 2003 9:58 AM"More to the point, why do people seem to assume that the government has some duty to allow people into the country just because they want to enter?"
But in the past you have endorsed open borders yourself.
All this, and consistency, too, huh?
Yes, I am all for immigration; the more, the better. But, as with free trade, I believe that immigration is a favor we do for ourselves, not a duty we owe to those outside the states (though I by no means minimize the advantages of immigrating). So, while I believe that as a matter of self-interest, we should promote immigration, I do not believe that we have a duty to any particular person to let him in.
Posted by: David Cohen at December 10, 2003 12:39 PMMr. Choudhury, if Americans could not make fun of their government -- and have good grounds for it -- they would be miserable.
Somebody ought to compile a book of aphorisms about government: I'm from the government, I'm here to help; close enough for government work etc.
One of the reasons I find Orrin's horror of the all-encroaching state so funny is that Americans remain deeply skeptical of the state.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at December 10, 2003 10:59 PM"One of the reasons I find Orrin's horror of the all-encroaching state so funny is that Americans remain deeply skeptical of the state"
But not skeptical enough to rein it in to any degree.
Posted by: M. at December 10, 2003 11:28 PMYeah, you can't find good cocaine anywhere these days, can you?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at December 11, 2003 2:17 AM