Cat Stevens moment

[mrph]

Sheikh Dr Zaki Badawi, a leader of the Council of Mosques and Imams.

He's the guy who was standing next the Chief Rabbi and the Archbishop of Canterbury for a joint, multi-faith statement after the London bombings - he described the bombings as "an evil that cannot be justified and that we utterly condemn and reject".

He was also, according to BBC news, invited to a state banquet held for President Bush by the queen, back in 2003.

So it's probably fair to say that he's one of the most prominent UK muslim leaders, definitely part of the establishment and loudly speaking out against these acts.

He's also just been refused entry to the US without explanation, despite all of the above (and having visited without incident in 2003). According to the BBC, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it had information indicating Dr Badawi was "inadmissible". "We cannot disclose the information which led to the application being inadmissible because of privacy rules", they say.

This is getting a fair bit of coverage in the UK, for obvious reasons. It's not helping anyone's faith in US intelligence. And every time something like this happens (such as the Derek Bond case, for example), people start to wonder about all the other claims the US government has made...

Comments

[giggly-teapot.livejournal.com]

A month or two ago they deported an journalist from the Guardian, because she had not cleared her visit with the Homeland Security office. She pointed out that she was not working but on a package holiday to Disneyland with her family. They ruled that journalists are only allowed in if they have the correct visa, or in other words they can only visit for work purposes?

[mimmimmim.livejournal.com]

They're very tricky about journalists. The official reason is that they take work away from American journos. I've had colleagues who've been deported from the US (admittedly on their way to industry fairs...).

I'm not anticipating ever having an easy time getting into the US, having a) visited both Cuba and Commie Russia (way back) and b) working for a magazine.

[jruske.livejournal.com]

There have been numerous cases of people far less prominent and far less interesting who have been denied entry in the past three plus years. I think we are seeing the beginning of a proactive stance at border crossings which mimics some of the existing immigration policies in the USA.

For instance, North African and Middle Eastern individuals who would have had a very hard time emigrating to the USA will now find even getting a visitor visa is extraordinarily difficult. Individuals who are known to affiliate or organise muslims and islamic groups will likely always be interviewed and denied entry, just as they would not be allowed to move to the USA without rigorous checking.

Where this gets interesting is the presumption there is something inherently evil or wrong about that kind of handling. The truth is that there have been numerous statements made by several prominent Imams that are both threatening and opposed to the USA. If you are someone who is a member of the Council of Mosques and Imams then you presumably know a good number of followers and leaders in your faith.

Under the simple tenet of known association with individuals who have made threats or illustrated their opposition to the USA - you should be barred entry.

Let me give you an example of this with a totally different religious/political group. If you were associated with the leadership of Sinn Fein or the IRA then you are going to be denied entry into the USA. Even if you are Gerry Adams you need COngressional sponsorship to enter the USA - because you have positioned yourself as someone who is knowledgeable about and has previously worked with individuals terrorists.

Nothing surprising or contrary about that. No more so than barring Hamas leadership from coming into the USA.

The media and the Islamic community would have you think this handling is an affront and indicative of poor judgment by USA officials. In truth it is the rational systematic elimination of people who have access to the USA based on their backgrounds and likely associations (casual or otherwise) with other individuals who may be a direct threat.

There are plenty of screw ups - like barring an Australian reporter from entering the USA a year or so ago. But blocking a prominent Imam whose council interacts with Imams who are outspoken in their opposition to the USA just makes sense.