Chertoff Considering Requiring Visas for Britains of Pakistani Origin

In the wake of the London Bombings, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is leaning on Britain to restrict access to the U.S. for its citizens of Pakistani descent.

American officials, citing the number of terror plots in Britain involving Britons with ties to Pakistan, expressed concern over the visa loophole. In recent months, the homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, has opened talks with the government here on how to curb the access of British citizens of Pakistani origin to the United States.

The proposals Chertoff is said to be considering:

Among the options that have been put on the table, according to British officials, was the most onerous option to Britain, that of canceling the entire visa waiver program that allows all Britons entry to the United States without a visa. Another option, politically fraught as it is, would be to single out Britons of Pakistani origin, requiring them to make visa applications for the United States.

Just what we need, more ethnic profiling. We should be working to eliminate racial and ethnic profiling, not coming up with new ways to embrace it.

< Army Places New Restrictions on Military Bloggers | Don Imus Hires Martin Garbus to Sue Over Firing >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Profiling? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by koshembos on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    We used to call such behavior racism.

    DING! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by the rainnn on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:00:00 PM EST
    exactly -- BTWB -- "brits touring,
    while brown
    . . ."

    as bad as DWB -- driving while
    , here in the u.s. and a. . .


    H'mm how many generations do we go back? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by womanwarrior on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:07:40 PM EST
         Don't we have some major logic problems here, or did Chertoff skip that class?  We have how many Britons, born and bred there, whose parent or parents came from Pakistan, or grandparents or great grandparents?,or aunt?, and say maybe 10 or 20 of "those people" commit heinous crimes.  And to prevent further crimes, we keep out how many thousands or hundreds of thousands who didn't commit any crime and actually disapprove of suicide bombings?  
         Didn't the Supreme Court finally say that the Japanese Internment cases were all unconstitutional or did Chertoff forget to read that one also?  
         Let's see, did we deny visas to all Irish because some Irish were part of the Irish Republican Army?
         Maybe we should deny visas to all Germans because Hitler and the Nazi party committed the Holocaust.
         I think it best if we build a wall all around our country and let no one in or out, unless Chertoff personally approves them.  Oh, wait, didn't the East Germans try that?  
         Does anyone think about History any more?  Where is the Jonathan Swift of our day with another modest proposal?  

    Oh Walt (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu May 03, 2007 at 12:46:54 AM EST
    That was sweet.

    You reading this too, Chertoff? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:36:14 AM EST
    Stop looking to fan the flames, moron. Pakistan is teetering on the brink as it is.

    Why not just all MEN? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:37:54 AM EST
    Remember the 1% Doctrine.

    Visa... (none / 0) (#3)
    by desertswine on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:41:02 AM EST

    chertoff -- cheney -- rice. . . (none / 0) (#4)
    by the rainnn on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:46:10 AM EST
    ". . .it's a connections, thing, you know?"

    now, as further proof that
    "connections matter," we learn
    today that secretary of state
    condoleezza rice will meet on
    this friday(!) with the foreign
    minister for the same syrian
    "jihadist supporter" that
    one month ago, speaker pelosi
    was practically swift-boated
    out of a meeting
    with. . .

    "gee pot.  you look as black as
    i did, just last month. .

    s i n c e r e l y,

    -- the kettle

    wow. these folks would be comical,
    if it weren't the future of the
    world hanging in the balance. . .

    rainnn what would be funny would be (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 02, 2007 at 03:20:37 PM EST
    if I thought that

    Uh... You do get the difference, don't you..

    Rice is Sec of State, Executive Branch....

    Pelosi is Majority Speaker of House, Legislative Branch....

    I guess it would be okay with you if let the Sec of Defense decide how much money goes to the troops????


    gee jim, you sure are a smart, smart guy. . . (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by the rainnn on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:53:18 PM EST
    erh -- jim:

    you are right.  i must be dense.

    i guess i am too dense to understand
    how vice president cheney's april 4
    remarks were -- in any way -- limited to
    the legislative branch of the united states
    government.  i guess when he said we would
    be "rewarding promoters of jihadists"
    by meeting with the syrians -- i did not sense
    that the "reward" would be in any manner
    smaller, were it secretary of state condoleezza
    rice conducting the meeting -- which will now
    take place in just a few hours, on the other
    side of the international date line. . .

    personally(?) -- i think it wise that ms.
    rice -- and mr. cheney -- have both done
    an about-face, and decided, after pelosi's
    shining example
    , that engaging the syrians
    in talks will be productive to enhancing
    stability in the region. . .

    once again, we democrats are only too
    happy to lead you republicans, by our example. . .

    s m i l e. . .


    rainnn (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:12:43 PM EST
    If your leading by example is shredding the Constitution and viloating the Logan Act, include me  out.

    Sorry to interject (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Freewill on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:46:59 PM EST
    Jim I don't think you were invited. So, consider yourself out and nobody will think any less of you than they already do!

    freewill -- sorry -- my bad. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by the rainnn on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:10:52 PM EST
    no, freewill, it is my
    fault, for feeding the
    troll here. . . we can
    safely ignore him now
    if he feels democrats
    are the ones shredding
    the constitution [can't
    see that torture is a
    republican family-value?].

    so -- bub-bye, now, jim.


    rainnn (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 03, 2007 at 08:08:43 AM EST
    You are invited to read my response to Walt's inaccurate comments.

    Why anyone would take the position that Congress is authorized to break the law, for any reason, is beyond me.

    But, unfortunately, that is what he does.

    Have a nice day!


    Freewill (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 03, 2007 at 07:44:53 AM EST
    Sorrrrrry Freewill, it isn't your party.

    The US Constitution states certain powers. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by walt on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:55:24 PM EST
    Madame Speaker of the House is one of the officers of the United States named in the Constitution; the Sec. of State is not.  The Speaker is very clearly directed by the Constitution to make all Laws . . . that the Executive branch will need to implement any of the powers of the United States, a department, or an officer.  It's just flat out blatant fact that Speaker Pelosi has every right to take such actions--also, she had Tom Lantos, Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committe in her group.

    The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers . . .

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    "All other powers . . . ."  Now, where's that shredder?  Can't make the Speaker's power any stronger than that, hunh?

    Congress has the POWER to take all manner of trips in order to gain information & do research on the laws that will subsequently come before the 2 chambers.

    The Logan Act does not apply to a "sworn officer" of the United States.


    walt -- this isa thing of beauty. . . (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by the rainnn on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:49:21 AM EST
    elegantly-turned, that!

    thank you for investing the
    energy and time to lay it out
    so very concisely.  you rule, man!

    [wishes he was smart enough to
    have answered jim this way
    . . .]


    Back to the library, Walt (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 03, 2007 at 08:05:52 AM EST
    Your argument is based on the duty of Congress to do oversight. No one is arguing that point, and it is whipped out everytime Congress steps across the oversight line into the executing duties of the group being "reviewed."

    It is that "across the line"  into "executing duties" that there is a problem.

    Congress is not authorized to break the law in pursuit of its duties.

    But I digress. The Logan act states:

    Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
    This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

    I trust you understand that Dear Leader and Santos, and all others on her trip to tell the killers what her policy would be, are citizens.


    This becomes tedious. The Constitution is clear. (none / 0) (#25)
    by walt on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    Your inability to read is astonishing.  "All other powers" of the government, any department, any officer: it cannot possibly be any more sweeping as to the extent of the POWER!!!! vested in Congress, specifically the Speaker of the House (who also has the power to delegate her power). [My emphases throughout this post]

    Your comment: It is that "across the line"  into "executing duties" that there is a problem is hilarious.  It's as if you went out of your way to contradict the Constitution.  There is no line.  In the "necessary & proper" clause, the Constitution clearly empowers the Congress oversight on the process of "carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers. . . ."

    Because of your utter incapacity to understand the Constitution, I'll help you here:

    Congress (& specifically the Speaker of the House) has the power to check out, to oversee, to investigate whether the executive branch is "carrying into Execution" all that government stuff that they're supposed to act upon.  No lines exist among the powers to acquire information about laws, enacting the laws, determining if the laws are being executed & finding out if the laws are enforced.

    The Logan Act applies only to "citizens."  The act reads: "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States. . . ."  The Constitution, as quoted by me, very clearly and directly gives the Speaker of the House of Representatives that authority.  And, by extension, all other "officers" of the United States.  There are laws & "stuff" in the Code of Federal Regulations that explain who or what the officers & departments actually may be, but that line of reasoning is unnecessary in showing that Madame Speaker Pelosi has that exact, precise, defined, enumerated Constitutional AUTHORITY.

    Google is your friend & the very elementary Wikipedia can keep your focus on reality. In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern went to Cuba.

    The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country.

    Your comments are totally inaccurate.  It seems as if you are unable to read & understand either the Constitution or the Logan Act.

    I would recommend that you switch your radio from am to fm/stereo & tune in an excellent classic rock station.  Boot up your computer, go to Google & enter "US Constitution."  Choose the National Archives version.  Then read it aloud, slowly, one phrase at a time.  Imagine in your head the voice of Representative Barbara Jordan (1936-96) saying the words to you.  "My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total."

    Better yet: go to a nearby community college & enroll in one of those classes for newly arrived immigrants preparing for their USA citizenship process.  It would astonish you to discover & learn what this country is all about.  Be careful, though; they might make you enroll in a remedial reading class first.


    Some Temporary Temp who served in the (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Freewill on Thu May 03, 2007 at 06:53:56 PM EST
    Regan Administration back around 1984 and 1985 as an "Acting Assistant Secretary" wrote an Op-Ed article in the Wall Street Journal that tried proclaim that Speaker of the House Pelosi was in violation of the Logan Act.

    Jim took that article, hook, line and sinker. Since that acting assistant secretary authored the WSJ op-ed somehow Jim felt he was "edumacated" and Jim learned a new word to quote. Some would explain it as a "Talking Point of the Day". The anti-Constitution crowd now try to confuse the Logan Act in order to try and bring about negative public reaction towards Pelosi and Democrats in general.

    This was the author that Jim loves to quote so dearly since he was given instructions by Mr. Turner on how to argue and confuse this law:

    Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85

    The link goes back to that wonderous day that Jim learned a new Republican Catch Phrase of the day. Please admire the beautiful cut and paste techniques that Jim displays. Beautifully mastered!


    That should read ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by cymro on Wed May 02, 2007 at 02:34:18 PM EST
    Chertoff Considering Requiring Visas for Britons of Pakistani Origin

    No man is an island (none / 0) (#8)
    by DavidDvorkin on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:13:09 PM EST
    Except, I guess, those Britons of Pakistani origin.  :)

    Chertoff, make it easy on yer self ol' chat (none / 0) (#13)
    by Freewill on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:51:53 PM EST
    Require visas for Britistanis. Man, do these Repubs ever learn their own lessons? Keep it as confusing as possible because it's easier to re-confuse the already confused.

    "Confuse me once, shame on you, confuse me twice, can't confuse me again!"

    Profiling (none / 0) (#15)
    by diogenes on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:11:21 PM EST
    If El Al pays special attention to a Syrian entering a flight to Tel Aviv, is it really racism?
    Profiling is NOT racism.  Visas for Pakistani origin Britons might not have a high yield rate, thus being poor police work, but that's a different story.

    diogenes -- and black folks drivin' are. . . what? (none / 0) (#16)
    by the rainnn on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:56:17 PM EST
    c'mon. . .

    the "low yield" is just a dodge
    for the fact that it is a poor predictor,
    and inherently suspect, as it is based on
    an immutable characteristic.

    just my $0.02.