Having been approved 261-161 in the House, H.R. 418 is about to wend its way through the Senate, and it's one nasty bill, designed in part "to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal." Because Sec. 103 is so (intentionally) vague, it becomes almost infinitely applicable and malleable.
Check out, for instance, their criteria for inadmissible aliens:
'(IV) [Any alien who] is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of--"Endorses or espouses" could already refer to (for instance) Ward Churchill. It's the politico-legal embodiment of David Horowitz's bleating about how the academic left supports terrorism.`(aa) a terrorist organization; or
`(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
`(VII) [Any alien who] endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;That is, you don't even have to be a "representative" -- just someone who "persuades" others to support those so-called terrorist organizations.
`(IX) [Any alien who] is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years...It's retroactive, and applies to your nearest and dearest as well.
Moral of the story: the next time there's, say, a Palestinian solidarity rally (or, for you Pinoy readers, any leftist organization that in any way remotely resembles the Communist Party of the Philippines -- since we know those people overseas can't tell those orgs apart) in your town, remember that "solidarity" may be a semantic hop and a skip away from "endorse or espouse." Don't forget: that strict upholder of the Constitution, Alberto Gonzales, is watching!
The bill gets worse, particularly with Rep. Pete Sessions' last-minute amendment, described here:
Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) offered an amendment that passed the House by a voice vote. The amendment would provide unprecedented authority to bounty hunters to "pursue, apprehend, detain and surrender" immigrants in removal proceedings. It also would set the minimum bond amount at $10,000 and prohibit the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from releasing on recognizance anyone placed in proceedings.You've been warned.
And don't even get me started on denying drivers' licenses to undocumented immigrants...
Posted by the wily filipino at February 14, 2005 03:02 PMYour "warning" is especially chilling, as I have spent the afternoon reading Harriet Jacob's Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, with accompanying ominous feelings. I'm teaching the book in my Ethnic Studies course.
j.
Posted by: Jean on February 14, 2005 04:09 PMGreetings From Mars...the seeming vagueness of some of the provision of the proposed bill is so ridiculously apparent that it could be technically in violation of the Miranda Doctrine which is a legal doctrine of American root. It may be set aside by the U.S. Supreme Court for being unconstitutional. The trend in American jurisdiction nowadays is more inclined to protect the presumption of innocence and due and proper notice to the accused as it decided in the Guantanamo prisoners.
By the way, i have written about your blog in my site. I hope you do not mind.
Posted by: Major Tom on February 16, 2005 07:15 AM