Material support for stupidity
We have a law that prevents people from immigrating to the United States if they supplied “material support” for a terrorist or terrorist organization (section 212(a)(3)(b)), material support being defined in part as “to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons”
So far, not so bad. We certainly don’t want terrorists coming here. No sir. Here is an example of how it has been applied. This woman in Sierra Leone had a group of terrorists in her house for four days. Her daughter was there also. According to the New York Times (April 3, p. A20) her application for refuge in the US is being denied. Sounds a little harsh, but we don’t like terrorists.
One tiny problem: she, and her daughter, were being raped and further injured by the guerrillas. And there are more cases.
The Refuge Council USA reports that many refugees and asylum seekers from Burma have been denied for simular reasons. They contributed money to sub-groups of other groups that may be associated with a desire to violently overthrow the Burmeese government. Wait a minute: isn’t the US opposed to the dictatorial junta running Burma now? As the NYT points out by the same logic you could keep out of the US the Iraqis who helped rescure Jessica Lynch. For more on the Burma situation see Burma Underground.
And this restriction is keeping out refugees from Columbia as well.
Can we get any more stupid?
Comments
Thanks for posting this! There are so many things wrong with this situation that sometimes I just think my head is going to explode. It's not only the result of stupidity, particularly from the Department of Homeland Security, but it's in large part just negligence. Some dimwit decided that our definition of 'terrorist' activity simply wasn't inclusive enough, and didn't think of the consequences. Now they know the consequences and they're still sitting on their bums about it.
On the one hand, insurgents in Burma aren't specifically trying to overthrow the government - they are defending their own territory and fighting for autonomy, the same as some little country I happen to know did a few hundred years ago. Even George Washington would be a terrorist according to Michael Chertoff.
The only good news is that they already have the power to change this - the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Secretary of Department of Homeland Security (that's his title, isn't it?), can all agree to exempt specific groups from this clause, presumably, both those fighting the insurgency as well as the refugees. Although it would be nice to get rid of the Patriot Act in general, it's not necessary to override any law here. All they have to do is give the word on who is exempt.
To that end, I suggest writing a letter or signing the petition, so they know we aren't blind to their ignorance.
http://www.petitiononline.com/givrefge/petition.html
Posted by: Tara | April 7, 2006 12:17 PM