Music scholar barred from U.S, but no one will tell her why

[olafgypsy]

Boy, does this ever hit home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/nyregion/17musicologist.html

[IBMMuseum]

Boy, does this ever hit home.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/nyregion/17musicologist.html

But there are some things not said in this version that I have seen in another article. It would seem her fiance Paul Flight is a U.S. citizen. Although I haven't seen anything about their wedding plans, if during the initial inquiry they let something drop about planning to get married in the U.S. while on a non-immigrant visa?

[Coventrated]

But there are some things not said in this version that I have seen in another article. It would seem her fiance Paul Flight is a U.S. citizen. Although I haven't seen anything about their wedding plans, if during the initial inquiry they let something drop about planning to get married in the U.S. while on a non-immigrant visa?

H1B is dual intent.

Impossible to comment, not enough facts.

[olafgypsy]

The reason it hit home for me was because of the difficulty the musicologist and her fiance have had in obtaining *any information about her case. When I found out my fiance was inadmissible, we thought about trying to obtain his immigration record through FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act. But there is a clause in FOIA that says the Department of State is not obligated to release immigration records. Even if they agree to release them, it takes about a year to get them.

I believe that this is a major violation of immigrants' rights -- everyone has the right to know of what they stand accused before a government, particularly when the accusation has led to
a significant reduction in their quality of life.

[Coventrated]

Assuming that H1 is the case here, then there is no violation of Immigrant rights, it is not an Immigrant Visa.

[olafgypsy]

Okay, actually what I meant to say is it's a violation of *human rights.

[olafgypsy]

Articles 6 - 10 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: (Just googled it out of curiosity and thought it was interesting in light of the above story)

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

[Coventrated]

Articles 6 - 10 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: (Just googled it out of curiosity and thought it was interesting in light of the above story)

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

None of the above are relvant to the situation as described, which may or may not be the actual truth.

[joy&pain]

None of the above are relvant to the situation as described, which may or may not be the actual truth.

“They told me I was nobody, I was nowhere and I had no rights,” she said. “For the first time, I understood what the deprivation of liberty means.”

It is relevant.

[Coventrated]

She is not a US Citizen.

She is not a US Permanent Resident.

She seems to have been taken to Secondary Immigration and questioned. I have also been to Secondary Immigration, I was there a couple of hours I think, I did not consider that being deprived of my liberty, she seems to.

To me being deprived of liberty is a much much bigger issue, and demeans those who have good claim for this, we may differ.

[emt103c]

"Mem'ries,
Light the corners of my mind
Misty water-colored memories"

Think music and Barbara Streisand....this article brought back memories of the Immigration officer going through my purse (the purse of a U.S. Citizen that he was holding in a small green cell)

AND listening to him discuss my credit cards, bank cards, ID cards, licenses, etc with his buddies all the while my phone ringing with my frantic mother wondering where her daughter was for nine hours.....as they denied me access to the phone, bathroom or an attorney....oh the memories.....

[olafgypsy]

For me the issue is not so much deprivation of liberty as it is the right to know of what you stand accused before the law. Any person, whether a U.S. citizen or not, should have the right to know of what they stand accused before *any government, whether their own or not.

Now, I'm sure USCIS would argue that they are conducting a "background check" upon this person, the details of which, for national security reasons, they cannot disclose. But consider this: this woman has been deprived of her career, about which she is passionate, and separated from her fiance, about whom I assume she is also passionate. I think that when a government's inefficiency, secrecy, and barely-cloaked ideology have consequences like this, that government has crossed the line from reasonable measures to protect a nation's safety to a violation of another person's rights as a "person before the law."

No, this kind of violation of rights is certainly not on a level with the kinds of horrible things that happen in prisons, civil wars, international conflicts, and genocides. But that does not mean it doesn't "count." When we are able to ensure the kinds of basic rights -- to live safely, to be well-fed, to have health-care, and freedom -- that are violated in the above situations, then it's time to ensure that other kinds of rights -- our rights as people before the law -- are not infringed upon. I believe that these rights should be extended by any government to any human person, regardless of that person's nationality, race, religious or political beliefs.

A government's need to protect its nation's safety must be tempered by what we believe about the rights and dignity of the human person. Otherwise, what are we protecting?

[Coventrated]

Right of admittance to the US is discretionary, the default is to refuse.

Exactly the same way as if it was a USC seeking entry to the UK.

[emt103c]

But how many times have you heard of the UK holding a US Citizen for eight hours, being confrontational and depriving them of Consular or attorney access and then barring them because they attempted to enter on a VALID visa? Her visa, to her knowledge was valid until 2008 and yet she is banned for trying to enter on it.

DIGNITY is definitely one of the issues in her case and many of the other removals (expedited or otherwise)....trust someone who's been there...

[olafgypsy]

I know that the US doesn't *obligate* itself to provide the same juridical rights (such as due process) to non-citizens as it does to citizens, since immigration is technically an "administrative" and not "legal" concern. I'm just saying maybe it should, and if it followed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it would.

I just think it's sad that a nation that has such a strong history and track record of protecting civil liberties would have such a blind spot when it comes to the immigration issue. It's like we're so blinded by this imaginary construction of the "dangerous foreigner" that we can't operate rationally when it comes to the real immigrants who are vital parts of our families and communities.

[Coventrated]

But how many times have you heard of the UK holding a US Citizen for eight hours, being confrontational and depriving them of Consular or attorney access and then barring them because they attempted to enter on a VALID visa? Her visa, to her knowledge was valid until 2008 and yet she is banned for trying to enter on it.

I do not follow UK Immigration boards, I remember one case on visajourney, USC Fiancee sought entry, UK Immigration found Job Resume's in his luggage, suspected him of looking to work illegally and refused him entry.

DIGNITY is definitely one of the issues in her case and many of the other removals (expedited or otherwise)....trust someone who's been there

We do not know why she was refused entry, when I have seen these stories before there has always been a reason, often takes a long time for it to come out.

I know of no country that gives visitors a right of entry. All the ones I have been to require you to apply, basically simlar to the US. Apart from anything else just not practical and open to far too much abuse.

Have just had a ping around, still not clear, maybe a name hit, but just a guess.

One thing that was not clear from the article, this happened over a year ago....

[IBMMuseum]

When well-known or 'talented' people have immigration troubles it does bring to light that it can happen to anyone. One other case I've known about is British actor and playright Steven Berkoff (I mainly know him as Stigar in the Children of Dune mini-series, although he has also been in Rambo and Bond films too). He was deported in 2002 for a "deficiency in his documentation" (wherein he said that the U.S. immigration agency reaction was "Post-September 11 hysteria"), and had an overstay of one day in 1997.

[DaveH]

More importantly, who cares? If Julia Roberts gets stopped its a national tragedy. If Juliana Ramirez get cuffed, snuffed, and jailed, yawn...

[Coventrated]

Lily Allen?

Anybody?