Thank Uncle Teddy For This Loophole

Today, the Washington Times has an editorial written by Joel Mowbray about the loophole put into the 1990 Immigration and Nationality Act. After reading this, I would personally like to thank Senator Kennedy, but I doubt the Secret Service would look the other way when I slapped him.

Waving to the cheering crowd at the St. Patrick's Day parade with a giddy congressman by his side, Irish Republican Army political leader Gerry Adams visited the United States thanks to a special provision put into the law for him more than a decade ago by Sen. Ted Kennedy. And in that time, many other staunch advocates of terrorism have utilized that very same provision in order to come to the United States -- including several affiliated with the Taliban.

Simply put, the language Mr. Kennedy inserted into the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1990 states that consular officers cannot refuse a visa to someone on the grounds of advocacy of terrorism.

But while the law has been effective in keeping the door open for Mr. Adams -- allowing him to march in a St. Patrick's Day parade yet again this month in Holyoke, Mass. -- it has also proved a bonanza for people such as the former spokesman for the Taliban and an imam who helped run a school that is closely tied to the Taliban.

Though Mr. Kennedy has steadfastly refused to close the Gerry Adams loophole (including shortly after September 11), the State Department has the authority under the law to do so. Yet the State Department has tweaked it, but has otherwise refused to act.

(While the Patriot Act grants the Department of Homeland Security the authority to deny visas to those who use "position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity," DHS seems to do so only sporadically.)

So, who has gotten in thanks to Mr. Kennedy? For starters, the Gerry Adams provision is almost certainly the reason former Taliban spokesman Rahmatullah Hashemi was able to obtain a student visa to attend Yale University. The lengthy New York Times Magazine profile of him that caused quite a stir last month indicated that he was open about his Taliban past, yet he received his visa with ease.

Whichever consular officer granted Mr. Rahmatullah's visa, though, was just following orders. Under the subheading, "Advocacy of Terrorism Not Always Exclusionary," a high threshold is set, whereby inciting people to commit terrorist acts is not enough cause to deny someone a visa. The visa applicant's "speech must not only have induced others to undertake terrorist activity, but it must also have been made with the specific intent that such activity would result in death or serious bodily injury."

That's not in the law written by Congress, but in the regulations as written by the State Department. And it appears visa applicants are given quite a bit of leeway on that two-part test.

In October 2001, Imam Shabbir Ahmed took to the podium, speaking to an angry mob that was gleefully burning American flags and effigies of President Bush. The slight, bearded man of the cloth exhorted the crowd to wage jihad against the United States. He did this in Islamabad, Pakistan's capital -- at a market that was a stone's throw from the U.S. Embassy.

Less than three months later, Mr. Ahmed was issued a visa and traveled to the United States.
Once he arrived in Northern California in January 2002, the imam worked with his mentor to establish an Islamic school modeled on one the pair had run back in Pakistan. Karachi-based Jamia Farooqia counted many high-ranking members of the Taliban among its graduates and teachers.

Mr. Ahmed was deported before he and his mentor could open a U.S. version of Jamia Farooqia, but not until after at least one of his followers allegedly traveled to Pakistan for terrorist training. One member of his flock, U.S.-born Hamid Hayat, 23, is currently standing trial on charges of material support for terrorism for allegedly undergoing terrorism training. Authorities reportedly believe, however, that up to six other young men from Mr. Ahmed's former mosque in Lodi, Calif., also attended terrorism training in Pakistan.

And those are just some of the cases in which the Gerry Adams loophole has benefited cheerleaders for Islamic terrorism.

Those holding out hope that the State Department might use the authority granted it under the law to simply scrap the provision are likely to be sorely disappointed. Consular Affairs currently is run by Maura Harty, the protege and clone of the founder of the courtesy culture, Mary Ryan. Ms. Harty has largely continued the open-door policies of her mentor, particularly in Saudi Arabia, which sent us 15 of the 19 September 11 terrorists.

Which brings us back to Congress. Repealing Mr. Kennedy'shandiwork, though, is no small task. Not only would he present quite the roadblock in the Senate, but many members of the House probably would as well. Chief among them would be Rep. Richard Neal, Massachusetts Democrat, who was practically glowing as he marched alongside Mr. Adams in the St. Patrick's Day parade.

One would hope, though, that if Mr. Neal knew that the price of having Mr. Adams as his guest was the entry of supporters of Islamic terrorism, that the smile would be wiped off his face. But even if that happened, would it be enough to spur him and Mr. Kennedy into action to close the loophole?

Does the question even need to be asked?

Now, with all due respect to the senator from Massachusetts, there will be other people ahead of him in the "slap me because I'm stupid" line. That would be those in the state Department and Department of Homeland Security that refuse--for some ungodly known reason--to call a spade a spade.

Those who endorse terrorism, or the radical form of Islam practiced by the extremists should be among those denied entry into the United States. This is a land of opportunity, yes, however living here means having a level of responsibility that citizens must uphold. Among those is not to incite violence against this nation. As we have seen from the "Yaliban," he was deep within the hierarchy of a regime that was hostile to the United States. And yet both State and DHS had no problem with him coming into the nation to study here. Granted, the loophole allowed for such, but even the loophole had constraints; constraints that neither department within the federal government chose to utilize.

We are a nation at war. Those who wish us harm should not be allowed here. Does that mean that we should cut off all visas to people wishing to emigrate here legally, or come here to learn at our institutions so they can go back home, and try to make their home a better place? No, not if they bear us no ill will. If they do, and this goes to stricter enforement regarding visas, then they should not be allowed in America. Call it xenophobia. Call it isolationism. Call it whatever you want.

I call it common sense.

The Bunny ;)