USA demand visas for Brits of Pakistani origin

[InsaneApache]

The American government wants to impose travel restrictions on British citizens of Pakistani origin because of concerns about terrorism, according to a report today.

In talks with the British government, the US homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, called for these citizens to request a visa before they could travel to the US, according to the New York Times.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/...070680,00.html

Is this a good idea? Is racial/religious profiling going to have the desired effect? Is it racism? Or is it common sense?

I havn't made my mind up yet about this, but I am veering towards the common sense option.

Let see what direction the debate goes.

[Don Corleone]

This is wrong. It actually plays to the hands of the more radical Imams. I understand the rationale, what with the Tube bombers being British born of Pakastani descent. But we must resist the temptation to give into this sort of segregation. If British citizens of Pakastani descent truly pose such a risk, then we should require all British citizens to obtain a visa. This just gives fodder to the Mullahs preaching hate. I can see it now:

"See, no matter how long you live in their world, you'll always be a half-citizen to them. The only way for you to achieve full rights is to establish Sharia and force them to respect you..."

[Ronin]

This is wrong. It actually plays to the hands of the more radical Imams. I understand the rationale, what with the Tube bombers being British born of Pakastani descent. But we must resist the temptation to give into this sort of segregation. If British citizens of Pakastani descent truly pose such a risk, then we should require all British citizens to obtain a visa. This just gives fodder to the Mullahs preaching hate. I can see it now:

"See, no matter how long you live in their world, you'll always be a half-citizen to them. The only way for you to achieve full rights is to establish Sharia and force them to respect you..."

agreed...if it is such a security risk they should just demand a visa for everyone, of course then they will look more closely a some applications than others...but at least it can be done discretely...by doing this they´re just throwing more gasoline in the fire.

[Odin]

[QUOTE=InsaneApache]

Is this a good idea?

Well the old axiom "better to be safe then sorry" comes to mind.

Is racial/religious profiling going to have the desired effect?

If the desired effect is to eliminate a terrorist attack in the U.S. by a Muslim, then yes it will.

Is it racism?

Absolutelty, not all muslims are extremists.

Or is it common sense?

It is to me, I think and have felt for a long time that this country should have been seeled up like a drum. If you are not a citizen you should have a complete and through backround check before you get in. considering how many people dislike the U.S. already its unlikely to have a dramatic impact abroad (how much lower can U.S. prestige get?), have a postive domestic value as the government will finally be taking a bite out of a major problem (In my view it is anyway).

and finally solidifying the notion that protecting the U.S. from attack should not be reliant on a foriegn policy , but rather a firm domestic policy that enforces the laws in place.

Essentially this would have great ramifications for the illegal immigrant issue as well. Odin says thumbs up

[Ser Clegane]

I somehow doubt that this will really help to reduce the threat.

I assume that the 9/11 terrorists all actually had visa? How much of a background check do you think is realistic?

I have the feeling that this will indeed be just another convenient propaganda tool for extremists and will just create bureaucracy and a false feeling of added security for the US (just like this silly no liquids >100 ml in your hand luggage that we introduced here in Europe a couple of months ago).

[Fragony]

This isn't even legally possible......

[Don Corleone]

It is to me, I think and have felt for a long time that this country should have been seeled up like a drum. If you are not a citizen you should have a complete and through backround check before you get in. considering how many people dislike the U.S. already its unlikely to have a dramatic impact abroad (how much lower can U.S. prestige get?), have a postive domestic value as the government will finally be taking a bite out of a major problem (In my view it is anyway).

and finally solidifying the notion that protecting the U.S. from attack should not be reliant on a foriegn policy , but rather a firm domestic policy that enforces the laws in place.

Essentially this would have great ramifications for the illegal immigrant issue as well. Odin says thumbs up

Nothing in your stated position though supports the discretionary selection of those British citizens with Pakastani ancestors, which is a key hallmark of this policy. Shouldn't everything you say be true regardless of whether one's great grandfather was from Manchester or Pershawer (sp?) I think the guys in the so-called 'Real IRA' hold British passports. Do you want to let them come over here and work their mischief unabated?

[Odin]

I somehow doubt that this will really help to reduce the threat.

I assume that the 9/11 terrorists all actually had visa? How much of a background check do you think is realistic?

I have the feeling that this will indeed be just another convenient propaganda tool for extremists and will just create bureaucracy and a false feeling of added security for the US (just like this silly no liquids >100 ml in your hand luggage that we introduced here in Europe a couple of months ago).

You might be right, it may infact have the negative impact you forsee. That said whats the downside to requiring more backround checks and demands on foreign travelers?

As I said i dont see where U.S. prestige can drop further, or that there is a need for more propaganda. What I would find realistic is that airlines who book tickets for flights landing in the U.S. are required to cross check passengers to a U.S. mandated backround check, before taking flight.

I would much rather my government spend its resources on internal bureaucracy, then hoping another government does the checks and balances for them. I think this speaks volumes to the progression of the evolution of US policy to strengthen internal control, instead of being at the mercy of external controls.

[English assassin]

Common sense or not, if the US government insists on this, then our government should insist that ALL UK citizens must get visas to visit the US.*

We can't have a foreign government selecting between Brits on the basis of racial origin.

(* Which is OK by me)

[Odin]

Nothing in your stated position though supports the discretionary selection of those British citizens with Pakastani ancestors, which is a key hallmark of this policy. Shouldn't everything you say be true regardless of whether one's great grandfather was from Manchester or Pershawer (sp?) I think the guys in the so-called 'Real IRA' hold British passports. Do you want to let them come over here and work their mischief unabated?

If you are not a citizen you should have a complete and through backround check before you get in.

That is a quote from my post. I dont care where they were born, or what religous affiliation they have, if they are not a U.S. citizen a complete backround check should be done. Including followup checks once your here to validate your business here, I dont have a link so you can take what I am about to say with a grain of salt.

I seem to recall instances where travel visas were issued to foriegn students and low and behold they showed up 7 years later living in the U.S. illegally. My point is very simple, once you get in its easy to blend in.

[Don Corleone]

Sure, Odin. And actually, I would agree 100% with you. I would require visas on Canadians at this point*. But that's not what this particular policy does. It says "No visa required for Brits, unless you have a Pakastani in your family tree somewhere, then we do need a visa for you". You don't see that as foolishly discriminatory?

* Okay maybe not really, but I do think we need some kind of integrity on our borders. Hell, I'm frankly amazed that Al Queda hasn't shipped an army to Venezuela and DRIVEN here by now...

[Odin]

Sure, Odin. And actually, I would agree 100% with you. I would require visas on Canadians at this point. But that's not what this particular policy does. It says "No visa required for Brits, unless you have a Pakastani in your family tree somewhere, then we do need a visa for you". You don't see that as foolishly discriminatory?

Discriminatory? Oh yes no question about it, its a shabby way to go about it.

A precident for a further development of policy that gets me to my proposed end? Its that too, and thats why I support it. While I dont wish to discriminate against anyone there comes a point where someone has to make a decision as to what is the best way to implement a policy.

For instance should a sherriff in a small texas town spend his resources checking credentials of anglo's as opposed to hispanic?

Its a slippery slope, and its a dangerous discussion, but since it seems to be the muslim community in Britian(in this example) that wants to do us the harm, I'll give a tacid approval for targeting them in the first round of this policy.

While not popular and bordering on bigotry it has its foundations in some form of logic, albeit slightly flawed, my goal is to have everyone have to go through this if they want to come to the U.S., this gets me closer to that end.

[Don Corleone]

Well, I usually find myself agreeing with you Odin. In this case, however, I'm afraid I have to respectfully, yet strongly, disagree. This policy will do much, much more harm then it will help. What's more, I'm pretty sure that Fragony is correct and it won't pass legal muster. The 14th ammendment says you cannot discriminate based on race. So if you want to require visas of British visitors, then you have to do it for the lot of them. You cannot differentiate based ethnic or racial origin. Imagine for a second if we had said "White South Africans are welcome to visit the USA but black ones must stay home". We'd have been no better than Botha himself!

[Odin]

Well, I usually find myself agreeing with you Odin. In this case, however, I'm afraid I have to respectfully, yet strongly, disagree. This policy will do much, much more harm then it will help. What's more, I'm pretty sure that Fragony is correct and it won't pass legal muster. The 14th ammendment says you cannot discriminate based on race. So if you want to require visas of British visitors, then you have to do it for the lot of them. You cannot differentiate based ethnic or racial origin. Imagine for a second if we had said "White South Africans are welcome to visit the USA but black ones must stay home". We'd have been no better than Botha himself!

Well we can disagree on this one Don, you know I am somewhat of an isolationist and while this is a poor example of a policy, again it gets us closer to a universal application.

the 14th amendement to my recollection does not cover foriegn travellers, for a us citizen you are absolutely correct, for a UK citizen Im not so sure it offers them the same protections.

I dont know for sure, so if someone clarifies it that would be cool.

[caravel]

This is probably the most ridiculous idea I've yet heard of. They should make visas compulsory if they're worried about terrorists entering the US, not just single out one country and one ethnic group from within that country. This is clearly mindless knee-jerk politics at it's very best.

[Vladimir]

This is wrong. It actually plays to the hands of the more radical Imams. I understand the rationale, what with the Tube bombers being British born of Pakastani descent. But we must resist the temptation to give into this sort of segregation. If British citizens of Pakastani descent truly pose such a risk, then we should require all British citizens to obtain a visa. This just gives fodder to the Mullahs preaching hate. I can see it now:

"See, no matter how long you live in their world, you'll always be a half-citizen to them. The only way for you to achieve full rights is to establish Sharia and force them to respect you..."

How does requiring someone to acquire more pieces of paper "play into the hands" of more radical Imams. By this same logic would denying foot-washing machines do the same thing? Or maybe criticism about the war in Iraq?

This is a probability based risk assessment measure which uses A LOT of good information to suggest a course of action. That's what homeland security does (or is supposed to do). Is the US government restricting your freedom by requiring you to obtain a passport to travel to Canada now?

[Don Corleone]

How does requiring someone to acquire more pieces of paper "play into the hands" of more radical Imams. By this same logic would denying foot-washing machines do the same thing? Or what about criticism about the war in Iraq?

This is a probability based risk assessment measure which uses A LOT of good information to suggest a course of action. That's what homeland security does (or is supposed to do). Is the US government restricting your freedom by requiring you to obtain a passport to travel to Canada now?

Denying muslims (a religion) special treatment can be bantied about all day. We can at least point to Christians and say even though they're the majority religion, we don't honor their requests for state support either.

But in this case, you're talking about a taking a homogenous body of citizens (all British) and segregating them based on ethnicity. You can't argue fairness or equality, because it's a policy that is inherently unfair and unequal. If you were forcing all Brits to get visas, that'd be one thing. But singling out people of Pakastani descent (and they're not 100% muslim, by the way), even though they're British citizens (and their parents and grandparents may have been), we cannot trust them and have to enact special protections.

The closest correlary I can come up with is saying in the 1980's that if you were of Slavic descent, you couldn't hold a security clearance, because you might betray secrets to the USSR.

[Vladimir]

But in this case, you're talking about a taking a homogenous body of citizens (all British) and segregating them based on ethnicity. You can't argue fairness or equality, because it's a policy that is inherently unfair and unequal. If you were forcing all Brits to get visas, that'd be one thing. But singling out people of Pakastani descent (and they're not 100% muslim, by the way), even though they're British citizens (and their parents and grandparents may have been), we cannot trust them and have to enact special protections.

The closest correlary I can come up with is saying in the 1980's that if you were of Slavic descent, you couldn't hold a security clearance, because you might betray secrets to the USSR.

Don, we actively discriminate against individuals as well as citizens of certain countries. Fairness has nothing to do with it, neither does equality, just risk and probability. It also makes no mention of ethnicity, just country of origin.

That's assuming this proposal is meant to be taken at face value and not an attempt to “massage” policy. Just look at the knee-jerk reaction in the UK.

[InsaneApache]

It also makes no mention of ethnicity, just country of origin.

Priceless.

Just look at the knee-jerk reaction in the UK.

My knees jerking about that much, I fell off my chair....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be honest I think singleing out Brits at all is racism.

Just require everyone to have a Visa, I'll probably never go to the US anyway so I'm not that bothered.

[Don Corleone]

Don, we actively discriminate against individuals as well as citizens of certain countries. Fairness has nothing to do with it, neither does equality, just risk and probability. It also makes no mention of ethnicity, just country of origin.

That's assuming this proposal is meant to be taken at face value and not an attempt to “massage” policy. Just look at the knee-jerk reaction in the UK.

We do all sorts of things we shouldn't and then regret later. That doesn't make it right. Country of origin is only appropriate for naturalized British citizens. Technically speaking, if you're born in Nottingham, your country of origin is the UK. The differentiator we're applying is ethnicity, regardless of whether Chertoff specifically says so or not.

I'm sorry, call me a flaming liberal pinko, but I've got to cry foul on this one.

[Don Corleone]

To be honest I think singleing out Brits at all is racism.

Just require everyone to have a Visa, I'll probably never go to the US anyway so I'm not that bothered.

Well, you're not a homogenous racial group any more, so no, it's not racism, but it is discriminatory.

What's more, trust me, visas won't do anything to stop terrorism. All the 9/11 hijackers entered the country on visas.

[Vladimir]

Priceless.



My knees jerking about that much, I fell off my chair....

Not quite sure what the first comment is about but I was refering to the "official response" from the UK. They don't seem to happy about it.

"unbelievable and shocking"

We do all sorts of things we shouldn't and then regret later. That doesn't make it right. Country of origin is only appropriate for naturalized British citizens. Technically speaking, if you're born in Nottingham, your country of origin is the UK. The differentiator we're applying is ethnicity, regardless of whether Chertoff specifically says so or not.

I'm sorry, call me a flaming liberal pinko, but I've got to cry foul on this one.

*sign* Don, read the first post. "British citizens of Pakastani origin" It's right there.

Is that what Chertoff is implying or what you're perceiving? Neither of which matter.

And has this been verified? I'd like a source other than the NYT.

[InsaneApache]

From what I've read and heard on these boards and others, is that the frontiers of the USA are about as watertight as a colander full of liquid.

So, I have to agree with Don on this one. If the USA were really concerned about terrorists entering the country, surely they would take more care of their (porous) borders.

Still aint made my mind up, although Don is beguiling me to the dark side.

Not quite sure what the first comment is about but I was refering to the "official response" from the UK. They don't seem to happy about it.

Their country of origin is the UK. Their ethniticy is south asian.

[Don Corleone]

In rereading the article, I may have made a mistake here. The key question I have is 'national origin'. Are we talking about Pakastanis that became British citizens or are we talking about people born in the UK to the aforementioned group?

Edit: The confusion I have is that the British Home Office's official response mentions ethnicity.


Edit2: It's all a moot point. As I said, all the 9/11 hijackers were here on visas. We may have tightened up a little, but I'm sure there's all sorts of unsavory types floating around on visas currently.

[InsaneApache]

As I understand it, both.

[Vladimir]

From what I've read and heard on these boards and others, is that the frontiers of the USA are about as watertight as a colander full of liquid.

Sadly enough that's what makes any immigration/visa policy from this administration hypocritical.

Don, compare

But today the Foreign Office made it clear would resist the idea. It said it would oppose any attempt to exclude particular ethnic groups from the US visa waiver scheme that allows citizens from 27 countries, including the UK, to travel to the US without a visa for up to 90 days.

to

The American government wants to impose travel restrictions on British citizens of Pakistani origin because of concerns about terrorism, according to a report today.

It's the Brits that are worried about ethnic and religious concerns.

[Ironside]

* Okay maybe not really, but I do think we need some kind of integrity on our borders. Hell, I'm frankly amazed that Al Queda hasn't shipped an army to Venezuela and DRIVEN here by now...

They tried, but were stopped by Venezuelan border guards.

Vladimir, I'm not sure if I follow you here, your quotes merely suggest that it was rejected by the Foreign Office some time after the suggestion came up. But admittably, unless most of the article were written before that statement, it reeks tabloid press about the article (headline =! content).

[Husar]

Well, if everybody will need a background check to get in and wait a long time etc, how will it affect business if foreign businessmen cannot just enter the country anymore?
Will they adapt or just do their business elsewhere if possible?

[InsaneApache]

it reeks tabloid press about the article

I'm sorry, no, I won't have that. The Times is not a tabloid.

Opps