Do you remember those school exercises in which you look at the same news events through the coverage of two or more different newspapers, to show how devices such as placement, framing and choice of words make a big difference in the overall effect of the story? It’s an old-school method but a good one, and for any teachers out there looking for material, a story in today’s New York Times that has gotten picked up in a number of other papers offers a fine case study. Let’s read it together, shall we? The headline is: U.S. Seeks Closing of Visa Loophole for Britons. We begin with the statement of the problem:
LONDON, May 1 — Omar Khyam, the ringleader of the thwarted London bomb plot who was sentenced to life imprisonment on Monday, showed the potential for disaffected young men to be lured as terrorists, a threat that British officials said they would have to contend with for a generation.
But the 25-year-old Mr. Khyam, a Briton of Pakistani descent, also personifies a larger and more immediate concern: as a British citizen, he could have entered the United States without a visa, like many of an estimated 800,000 other Britons of Pakistani origin.
The next graf is where the action is. In two tight sentences, it provides the scoop (Chertoff’s recent talks) and describes the problem as a “loophole,” a framing that, as you can see, percolated up to the headline, and thence to other papers, Google News links, and so on.
American officials, citing the number of terror plots in Britain involving Britons with ties to Pakistan, expressed concern over the visa loophole. In recent months, the homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, has opened talks with the government here on how to curb the access of British citizens of Pakistani origin to the United States.
We proceed now to some analysis. The article plainly suggests that the reason Britain is resisting Chertoff’s proposals is that accepting them would be damaging to the governing Labour Party. Don’t take my word for it:
At the moment, the British are resistant, fearing that restrictions on the group of Britons would incur a backlash from a population that has always sided with the Labor Party. The Americans say they are hesitant to push too hard and embarrass their staunch ally in the Iraq war, Prime Minister Tony Blair, as he prepares to step down from office.
Let’s pause here and take a look at a British item on the same story. So far only the Guardian has picked it up (it will be interesting to see how the other broadsheets and tabloids cover if and when they do), so we’ll go with that. The headline is: “US ‘wants British Pakistanis to have entry visas.'” The first four grafs are as follows:
The American government wants to impose travel restrictions on British citizens of Pakistani origin because of concerns about terrorism, according to a report today.
In talks with the British government, the US homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, called for British Pakistanis to apply for a visa before travelling to the US, according to the New York Times.
The newspaper claimed that US officials were concerned about the number of terrorist plots in Britain involving citizens with ties to Pakistan.
It is understood that the British government is resisting any attempts to single out particular ethnic groups for travel restrictions. The Foreign Office has yet to comment on the report.
That’s the core of the comparison. The New York Times story then moves of to a recap of the Khyam trial, which has little to do with the United States per se — Khyam was sentenced for a UK plot and much of the evidence comes from his actions in travel back and forth between the UK and Pakistan. The Guardian story sticks to the headline topic and ends quickly.
Of course there’s a whole political and legal analysis to be done here about the very idea of corralling off an ethnically identified subset of citizens of a given country for the imposition of special travel restrictions. I would venture that the idea is absurd, sinister and unworkable, a bad-policy trifecta; but hey, what do I know. I do know, however, that describing the ability of UK citizens of a particular ethnic origin to enter the US on the same terms as other UK citizens a “loophole” is, wittingly or not, an appeal to prejudice and an insult to intelligence.
[UPDATE: The UK Foreign Office, and, somewhat less forcefully, the US government, repudiate the New York Times story.]
really, it’s quite amazing how many more chances there are these days to define the term ‘second-class citizen.’ the slippery slope just got that much more slick…perhaps the US saw this as an appropriate proposal on yesterday’s Law Day?
Ditto. You know quite a bit:)
A little patch that can be sown on their jackets…a little yellow crescent and star…
that way we can identify them easily…
the innocent have nothing to fear.
Good point! Maybe we could just tattoo them on arrival. “Welcome to the United States! This way, sir… Not to worry, the needles are absolutely sterile!”
So ethnicity/race would become the controlling factor for visa determinations, rather than nationality.
It’s like 1924 all over again.
I read the NYT story (it was posted on the SM News tab by someone yesterday), and kept wondering throughout, what the ‘loophole’ was. The clear implication of the use of that word in this context is that the visa waiver was meant for ‘white’ people from Britain, and was never meant for non-whites to use.
They do seem to be considering withdrawing the visa waiver from all British citizens, not clear how far it will go though:
They do seem to be considering withdrawing the visa waiver from all British citizens, not clear how far it will go though
To me, that is the only equitable thing to do. If the visa waiver program should go away, then it should be without reference to race or ethnicity, i.e. a blanket withdrawal for all British passport holders.
No..no…you’re right.
So, you have a chemical engineering degree, Brit of pakistani descent, went 4 times to Pakistan in the last 3 years, visited NWFP on all those trips, then it must have been on a National Geographic assignment, welcome, sir, to America and this is the way to a flight training school.
I totally support intelligent data-mining!!! And btw I also loved George Tenet’s position on torture – “We’re bureaucrats…if the country decides based on our statistical reasoning about waterboarding techniques, we’ll just implement those.”
I feel British Media and the UK government give too much importance to extremist Muslim organisations, who are a tiny minority with in British Muslims, but claim to represent every single British Muslim.
India has complained for years that Pakistanis based in the UK will often go to Kashmir to fight the Indian army, then return to the safety of the UK. Plus, much of the money that supported Kashmiri groups came from Mirpuris living in the UK . While the idea of distinguishing among British passport holders may not be workable (I imagine a whole bunch of Indians and Bangladeshis suddenly appearing), that does not remove the very real problem of Pakistanis in the UK causing trouble in other countries.
Of course, then they could find a way to deny visas based on ethnic origin, or use census data to code ethnicity into the passport number, to flag for greater scrutiny, or etc! And why leave out Australia, Canada, the EU, etc? Withdraw the visa-waiver altogether!
This is incorrect. The word “loophole” refers to the entire visa waiver program, which is a loophole around presenting your visa.
Of course, then they could find a way to deny visas based on ethnic origin, or use census data to code ethnicity into the passport number, to flag for greater scrutiny
Sure, and who’s to say it’s not already happening? My point was only that as long as visas were granted or denied without regard for ethnicity or race, it wouldn’t really be an issue.
I think the visa waivers for the UK, EU and Australia should probably be withdrawn. I’m not so sure about Canada, because of the long border, but maybe that waiver should be withdrawn too.
What to do? Damn Jihadis keep making it harder and harder for me to travel anywhere. (I’m an international student from Pakistan.)
Bill Bryson wrote, in his wonderful book MADE IN AMERICA (1994):
“If one attitude can be said to characterize America’s regard for immigration over the past two hundred years it is the belief that while immigration was unquestionably a wise and prescient thing in the case of one’s parents or grandparents, it really ought to stop now.
“For two hundred years succeeding generations of Americans have persuaded themselves that the country faced imminent social dislocation, and eventual ruin, at the hands of the grasping foreign hordes pouring through her ports.” […]
What a grim prospect.
Visa waivers being withdrawn for all British travellers to America to ‘cover up’ the selective profiling of British Pakistanis would probably lead to reciprocal arrangements for Americans travelling to the UK being withdrawn too. The profiling would continue under that umbrella.
while immigration was unquestionably a wise and prescient thing in the case of one’s parents or grandparents, it really ought to stop now.
“I’m here. Now shut the door behind me.”
Surprisingly, I’ve actually heard a number of South Asian immigrants express this same view. Must be a case of not really wanting to share the bounties with a new wave of immigrants.
The other element of equity is reciprocity – what if those countries, Britain in particular, did the same to all US citizens? Of course they could issue ten-year multiple entry visas to some large, ethnically identified subset of them, I suppose. Yes, it could all happen, and that will be the ‘new normal’.
Are there any takers for the bet that
will actually win out? I still believe in the idea of America.
That will happen.
Yes, it could all happen, and that will be the ‘new normal’.
Right. I mean, if I can accept that I can’t carry hand lotion on the plane unless it’s a little plastic baggie, then I can accept the fact that I’ll need a visa the next time I go to London.
The other thing is the same reason why anything other than specifically intelligence led profiling in particular circumstances will fail — refuse entry to British Pakistanis because of the fear of Jihadis entering and you take the eye off white converts, Black British Jihadis (of which there are many, one of the London bombers as well as Richard Reid) and anyone else who decides to go that route.
So the US is concerned about a subgroup of Brits who reside in one American Ally (the UK) and who travel to another (Pakistan). Boy, with friends like these …
They must be profiling the suspects already. It’s the ‘separate queue’ and visa requirements based on race alone that mark it out as pernicious. That will do nothing to filter them out, nor prevent non Pakistani descended British jihadis getting to the USA. It would have to be visa requirments for all British travellers and do your Pakistani profiling hush hush behind closed doors or nothing, and that would lead to visa requirments for Americans entering Britain being regulated similarly. Richard Reid isnt Pakistani.
The vexing thing is what do they do if you’re half Pakistani, grew up in Leeds and like to go round to the pub for a pint and to talk to the birds? Ask them for half a visa?
It is outrageous that the NYT, which so readily proclaims itself as the bastion for all things liberal in the US, would stoop so low as to suggest “loophole” in the headline. I suppose unless they hear it from the ACLU, they cannot really judge if it is a liberal position or not.
Anyone with Pakistani blood would have to have a visa. Anyone with the Pakistani gene would have to apply for a visa that white, black, Indian, Chinese British people wouldnt have to. Presumably someone like Hanif Kureishi or just your regular Joe Ahmed on holiday or whatever, would have to read on the American Embassy website a special section and form to download and fill out — For all British Citizens of Non Pakistani racial descent click here, all Pakistani British Citizens click here. That’s how it would work.
The (very) big picture here is that the Westphalian state system is largely obsolete in the face of not only stateless, decentralized, networked and acephalous threats like international terrorism, but also in the face of contemporary economic and social reality writ large. Ultimately you can’t regulate globalization and hybridity with the traditional tools of nation-states. That’s why the efforts to do so always appear so silly and pathetic, even when the specific problems they seek to address are serious and real.
Meanwhile, (a) no one has come up with anything more workable than the nation-state, so far; and (b) institutions are primarily vested in their own preservation. So we’re going to have more of this absurdity, not less. In fact the more powerless state structures find themselves to be, the more hysterically they will act.
Lots of fun ahead.
Or more stories of “Travelling While Brown”
Not to mention that the biggest raison de etre of the state is that it offers “protection” (the state in this regard is very much like the mafia; Charles Tilly has an interesting article called “War making and State-making As Organized Crime” and I think its available on the web). Hence the inordinate and hysterical attention to ‘security’, quite out of proportion to its statistical importance.
Siddhartha, I would not immediately conclude that the nation-state is obsolete, or that even nationalism is irrelevant in today’s cross-pollinated global economy. I prefer to think of this as 1) a lazy incompetent decision by a few in neo-con Washington D.C. who have the unfortunate tendency to make unilateral decisions (which will most certainly not be accepted by a more progressive Britain, even with David Cameron) and 2) mindless cheerleading by the NYT which will do anything to sell a paper.
I am glad they’re turning that building into lofts.
Does the United States have any reason to be worried about British Pakistani causing any problems should they come to visit?
Fun indeed! Bad bad browns, no immigration for you.
NYT stopped being a voice of reason or the liberal bastion when they helped this administration make a case for the war.
Do you think it’s a good idea to have special visa requirements for specific races from a single country, clueless? Do you think it will solve the problem of jihadis entering the USA? Or do you think it will racially stigmatise a mass of people, whilst allowing the jihadis who are so inclined to find a way to avoid this procedure, like using white, black or non Pakistani British citizens to do their work, if that’s what they want to do? That’s what you have to think about, before posting your usual objections.
It is outrageous that the NYT, which so readily proclaims itself as the bastion for all things liberal in the US, would stoop so low as to suggest “loophole” in the headline
Far be it for me to defend NYT, but I think the “loophole” refers to the entire visa waiver program. Technically, every person needs a visa to come to the United States, but for international comity purposes, the US often waives the requirement. That waiver is the “loophole.”
In fairness to Siddhartha, I can see it both ways. The headline:
…does not refer to britons of pakistani descent, but to britons simply, so loophole seems to refer to the entire program.
But the story–which states that chertoff originally wanted to deny waivers only to brits of pakistani descent– implies the loophole is that granting the visa waiver privilege to Britain is equivalent to granting the privilege to Pakistan.
more telling than the use of the word “loophole” is that the guardian’s article is so short, as they cannot fathom to provide context out of fear of justifying profiling, while the nytimes goes into detail about the khyam case, which is, depending on your point of view, completely irrelevent or the whole point.
so i agree with siddhartha’s essential journalistic points.
Look, the ny times has always been the “establishment” liberal paper. I have read the Times between 1864 and 1904, and it is striking how little it has changed if you control for the historical context. It has always been highly ‘statist’ (supported most American Wars), though on the ‘liberal’ end (criticisms when things do not go well). One of my friends who just completed her dissertation found that even during the civil rights era it was mostly ‘moderate’ (i.e. opposed mass action, civil disobedience, was a big supporter of ‘law and order’ etc).
I did not say that British Pakistani’s should have special visa to enter the United States.
But at the same time the United States has the right to worry about the behavior of some of the British Pakistani population.
I’m sorry for having a conservative opinion when it comes to the issued of the security of the United States.
A British born Pakistani friend of mine could not get a Visa to go to India. He was given no explanation.
Bunch of bloody idiots in charge. Without knowing too much about anything I can say this, isolating a group of people is wrong, its a form of bullying, and you will get people who will fight back. Whatever means they think is right.
What if you were Kashmiri-British?
Clueless, for a conservative you don’t half play the victim card really quickly, claiming to be being persecuted or attacked for holding conservative views.
You know that there is a problem of some British Pakistanis having links to terrorist organisations. Asking you to consider whether this course of action is the best way to deal with it, after you use a rhetorical question dangling in the air like that, so that it takes on the implied meaning, ‘Well what are you complaining about, does the USA have anything to worry about or not?’, is just bad styles man.
….do Saudi Arabian citizen require visas for US?
I don’t think such an action will get implemented … at least in its current form, it seems too racist to be official.
Red Snapper I’m not a conservative. When it comes to issues like this I may be a little more to the right and when It comes to issues of gay rights/marriage and environment I happen to be on the left. But overall I’m no left-wing nut or right wing wacko but instead I’m close to the center as anybody can be.
But I be honest 9/11 did change me, when it comes to Western country’s have the right to protect themselves.
Loophole: A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.
The waiver is a valid law that poses a risk, it’s not a loophole! I believe Siddhartha has it right.
Who has said they don’t? The question is the efficacy and ethics of this course of action.
Not quite sure what that means. If he was found guilty of plotting, that’s criminal, right? If he was not found guilty, how’s he a terrorist?
Sorry, that quote in #47 was from the NYT article.
Siddhartha definitely has the ‘loophole’ thing right. The ‘loophole’ is that ‘terrorists’ become UK citizens – then get free access to bomb the US without needing a visa.
Red Snapeer, This wouldn’t be the first post 9-11 pissing contest. Remember Brazil? And these are just scrubbed clean official reports. Couple friends of mine (US citizens) had to wait for a few hours at Rio airport while the rest were cleared quickly. This was two years ago. Hopefully things are better now.