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.]
Fear those who consider being ‘center’ per se a badge of honor.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck – chances are… Time to realize what pathetic neighbors India is forced to deal with on a daily basis.
u more or less are right, except that siddhartha specifies the “loophole” as “the ability of UK citizens of a particular ethnic origin to enter the US on the same terms as other UK citizens.”
a seemingly small differnce, but “framing and choice of words make a big difference in the overall effect of the story,” as one great political thinker put it.
Manju, Siddhartha is not trying to spin anything here. Once ‘loophole’ is agreed upon – Randomizer in #49 has described the cause of the proposed US action while Siddhartha has described an effect of it. It is of importance to consider all effects of an action as well, not just act based on what motivated you in the first place.
Easy, cowboy! The NYT piece is simply an inside view of the options laid out – some of them could very well have been intended to be strawmen. I wouldn’t characterize these as “efforts”. Now, if there was actually some kind of official action – regulations, changes in the waiver program or whatever, that could be debated or struck down. This, is a classic establishment kite-flying exercise.
Very good point, Siddhartha. I was away from this discussion for a bit, and some very interesting points have been made. As you observe, nobody has come up with an alternative to the nation state, however, the powers in charge have also not given up on trying to reorganize the system of states so that it functions more along the lines they would like! Also, while non-state actors are extremely consequential here, let us not forget the role of the state-run ISI in Khyam’s case.
To reduce its power and reach, the state that supports it would probably have to go. So in the very long term, people are already saying that Pakistan may very well not survive as we know it – with Baluchistan going into a ‘transformed’ Iran, NWFP going into some confederation with Afghanistan, and Sindh, maybe, with India. The remnant, West Punjab, will be landlocked, and absorbed slowly, East-Germany style, into, perhaps a ‘Greater Punjab’ in India. Too far fetched? Maybe for now.
Indeed. An example of a broader phenomenon, which is the colonization of the state apparatus by non-state actors and interests. That’s how you end up with states that do one thing through one agency, and its opposite through another. Pakistan is a fairly flagrant example of that, but take a look at most states nowadays and you’ll find the same process at work to one degree or another.
i more or less agree. siddhartha and randomizers characterizations are like differnt sides of the same coin. siddhartha, by focusing on one side is framing the story one way. the guardian, by avoiding context, is doing the same thing. the times, by including context, is looking at the other side.
i don’t dismiss any of it as spin. it’s impossible not to spin, as inclusion of the khyam case consitutes spin, but exclusion does too.
An update from The Guardian: both US and UK officials deny the NYT report
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.
Compliance with the visa requirement would suggest that everyone could get a visa. The fact that waivers exist is a “loophole” that some can exploit. I don’t see the NYT article as suggesting any more than that, although I can see how it’s possible to read an angle into it.
I’m not accusing anyone of spin. Merely offering my two cents.
Siddhartha #27: Very pertinent and to the point. This is also the Libertarian argument for smaller government and a globalised economy.
A similiar threat has continued to exist since ~500 BC: Pirates. How the nation-state has dealt with them on high-seas could provide some food for thought for the war or terror.
M. Nam
Well, then, what should the United States do? It’s not like there aren’t people trying to get into the states for some serious monkey business, and uncommon examples aside, there are segments of certain populations who are more likely to be a part of that monkey business…..what should the plan be? How does the United States keep out possible terrorists? Is it simply too difficult and impractible and we have to use other means? And what should those means be?
Pirates did it for financial gain and not-so-willing to give up their lives for it.
How does the United States keep out possible terrorists?
I don’t see why it’s so onerous to require that all visitors have visas, and that all visa waivers should simply be abolished. A visa is a privilege, not a right, and the US may refuse to give you one for whatever reason.
And I think the notion that every second person who comes to the US is a terrorist is just spin. The fact is, millions of people come here every year without any nefarious intent at all.
hema: I think maybe you misunderstood me; I’m asking a serious question. You answered my question in stating that you think there being no visa waivers at all. It seems reasonable to me. Why were such waivers instituted in the first place? For easing business travel?
When I was 9 years old, I was a pirate for Halloween.
Also, it’s a non-sequitor that millions of people come to the US with no nefarious intent every year. The questions are: how much should you worry about those that are dangerous, and what should you do about them? Remember, the 9-11 hijackers were apparently flagged, but our procedures allowed them into the country anyway, and then we lost track of them once they were in the US. So, apparently, we screened well on a relatively rough scale, but just didn’t follow through.
If this problem turns out to require serious consideration, why not simply require longer-term visas for Britons? They could have 15 year or 20 visas instead of the current “free and in perpetuity” visa applicable only to certain countries, which might be a little obsolete as a concept.
I wish it was that simple.
First, visa waiver programs are not out of altruism, and love. They more than often driven by economics, and logistics for business, business transactions, and tourism. Therefore, you find countries from EU, Canada are part of reciprocal visa waiver programs from where a lot of money ($$$$$$) flows in both directions. Any added hoop, hinders the money flow.
Sure, circa 2000s, race/ ethnicity based exclusion (extra hoops) will cause a lot of problems. Even though, as of today, men from many Islamic countries have to do special registration in US***. If you read the article in NYT, they (intelligence gathering agencies) clearly believe that new wave of terrorism will be from citizens from UK, etc. with a clean prior record, therefore, they will pass cursory screening very easily.
As I said, I wish it was that simple.
*** Even in UK, a few hour stop over at the airport to change plane from someone from South Asian country needs a transit visa even if they live in USA, Canada. Only green card holders are exempt.
Why were such waivers instituted in the first place? For easing business travel?
I think money, mostly. The waiver countries are the ones where most of the tourists come from. And reciprocity ensures that the other countries benefit too. It’s specific to tourism too, because citizens of the waiver countries that come to the US to study or work still have to meet the corresponding visa requirements.
FINALLY! A pirate angle to the war on terror. Their connection to all sorts of social ills, like global warming, has only recently become readily apparent. Recently declassified information, such as this FBI file photo, are starting to bring to light just how the pirate menace can crushed…forever!
Thanks Kush; I knew I could count on you to provide something interesting. It sounds like acg is correct: this is just establishment ‘kite flying’ and not really feasible. The scary part is how to detect people who have clean records before all this. This will need close work with British intelligence services, I suppose.
link
Good for Her Majesty’s Government.
A NYT story can be incorrect? Who knew?
Visa waiver program is racial profiling. Only when it was constituted originally the nation-states were homogeneous but now they aren’t. So current visa waiver program is not accomplishing the original intent. According this reasoning Pakistani Britishers having this visa waiver is ‘loophole’.
I wish it was that simple. … First, visa waiver programs are not out of altruism, and love. They more than often driven by economics, and logistics for business, business transactions, and tourism. Precisely. The overhead (time and money) of a visa are typically a small fraction of the overall overheads for a business – hence the proposal for “a long-term visa” – although it may not seem so for an individual. Besides, economics has never been the sole factor in deciding on visas. In any case, global economics has changed a lot in the last 10 years. India is now #12 in worldwide GDP.
I don’t deny that the visa program to the U.S. needs an overhaul. It would be a good idea to look at whether longer-term visas are possible for people not only from Britain but also from other countries like India. I mean – why recheck the credentials of, say, a brown prof who wants to come to conferences in the U.S. over and over again?
You know, it seems to me that the commenters here could make a real contribution to this problem. A lot of you travel frequently for business, apparently, and have familiarity with the visa process. Brain storming some ideas to improve the system, and then passing them on to IAPAC or something, so they could pass them on to legislators, would be a good idea. Is IAPAC doing something like this already?
Oops, I mean USINPAC, not IAPAC. So many acronyms…..
Even in UK, a few hour stop over at the airport to change plane from someone from South Asian country needs a transit visa even if they live in USA, Canada. I know a non-GC South Asian who was given a transit visa (this was prior to 9/11). The UK did not require a transit visa for a stopover of less than 24 hours at the time. Things may have changed post 9/11.
Make that : ‘transit visa [at the Heathrow airport] (this was ….’
I happen to know a thing or two about transit visas – If you have a valid US visa, you will be granted a 24 hour British visa without any problem . This means that all the F1s, H1s etc in the US can go to Heathrow, get a 24hr visa, and travel to Gatwick and move on.
I’m pretty sure this relaxation applies only to US visa holders… other countries would specifically need to apply at a British embassy.
Things may have changed post 9/11.
Yes, they have, and they are not that simple either. Even if you have a temporary US green card, then you are not exempt.
You have been talking of 10 year visas. My parents have a 10 year, multiple entry visa to US. When I was a student here, I had 5 year multiple visa, so do others (I wasn’t special). It means jack.
Do you know how many people travel to and fro from Europe and Canada – Millions of them a year. How many US Consulate office will need more ~ 10,000-20,000 more.
For example, How much Canadian and US economy is joined on the hip – Billions and billions of dollars, and ease with which it is made to happen. People from Canada come to shop in “giant” mall in Minn, when they feel like.
Is American Idol open to American citizens only? How do they verify?
Do you know how many people travel to and fro from Europe and Canada – Millions of them a year. I assumed we are discussing this in the context of visas for Britons.
I couldn’t believe the use of the word “loophole” in the NYT article either. I think that what they might have been referring to was the fact that British citizens don’t go through the suspicious-persons database till they get to a US port because of the no-visa requirement despite the fact that the UK has produced its share of homegrown turrsts, but that still doesn’t justify the use of the word “loophole.” In fact, that NYT article reeked of right-wing rhetoric about namby-pamby European states that are soft on turrrsts and let them through to God’s green and glorious American shores, negating the hard work of upright Amurrcans. Why don’t these people just have a database for chrissake and require everyone who books a ticket to be checked through it? The rightwingers like to insist that we have to sacrifice some convenience In These Difficult Times but mostly they just seem to want non-white folks to have to go through the extra hoops. Poo.
People from Canada come to shop in “giant” mall in Minn, when they feel like.
It’s mostly just people from Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa at the Mall of America. The Canadians have their own really big mall to visit.
I am guessing this is required if you change airports? I know for a fact that you don’t need a uk transit visa if your connecting flight is from the same airport.
I know for a fact that you don’t need a uk transit visa if your connecting flight is from the same airport.
Sir ji or Madam ji,
Sometimes, for some people you do even if it is the same airport, and layover is for 20 minutes.
Here, the following are direct quotes from UK Government.
Direct airside transit visa (DATV) nationals DATV nationals are visa nationals who must have a visa to pass through the UK on their way to another country, even if they are not entering the UK or changing airports. Unless they qualify for exemption from the DATV requirement, they cannot transit without visa (TWOV). (You can get more information about DATV exemptions below.)
You can get a list of countries whose nationals need direct airside transit visas for the UK from this website on the Visa Nationals page, or from your nearest British mission overseas.
If you have a DATV, you will not be able to pass through UK Immigration Control, or collect any luggage on your journey through the UK. You will not usually be allowed to stay in the UK overnight to wait for a connection to continue your journey. Please check the British Government website for more details – You might be exempt, but that does not mean everyone is exempt. DATV is not a visitor visa, for that matter traditional transit visa. It has tighter restrictions.
Very typical of SM – extrapolation, mahan
Kush,
Thanks for info, from the linked site
You will be exempt from the DATV requirement and may be able to transit without visa if you hold one of the following.
So I guess that would apply to anyone validly the US.
And thanks for your attitude too.. that greatly helps in future conversations.
SP, are you being sarcastic here? There is, of course, such a ‘database’ already in existence, and it catches people like Sen Ted Kennedy.
From the Guardian:
Key word “planning.” They deny they were planning it. They don’t deny that they were considering it. Mr Jag-off really stepped in it this time.
I also think Siddhartha’s analysis here is dead-on. The argument could be made that the perceived problem with terrorism isn’t the deadly violence per se (a tool that no government is even close to repudiating), nor is it the ideology behind it (which can vary a great deal and in some cases mirror state interest), but rather the challenge it represents to the idea of the nation state. Terrorism causes exaggerated fear partly because it is spectacular (in the neutral sense of that word) and partly because it represents politics by non-state actors.
Terrorism is to the state as witchcraft is to the medieval church. The slightest whiff of it, and the authorities go batshit.
Then again, there is state terrorism. Terrorism as an instrument of the state? Yessir, when it works, or if other things don’t work, and if you can get away with it.
Uh, it’s the violence per se that’s exactly the problem, Mr. Kobayashi. If jihadis were all about staging non-violent protests and collegy- ‘die ins’, no one would give a damn. Some of you progressives are amazing: the violence, per se, doesn’t mean anything to you, does it? It’s all a bit of bother, dear boy, it’s all just hyped up, made up nonsense so that the jackbooted thugs of the state can get their run of the people, eh?
Yeah, the state is inherently a power grabber and it’s good to be vigilant. But, security ought to be a very important business of the state and given 9-11, Madrid, London, etc, it’s irresponsible not to be concerned. Did it every occur to you that by not taking it seriously, you’ve ceded that argument to the more excitable right? And between a ostrich and hyperactive tiger, sometimes the hyperactive tiger looks the better option to some? Sheesh.
Dear Mr. Bin Laden (if alive) and the big Al Q: you are a danger to western states and, in particular, the nation state! The fact that you blow innocent women and children and men to bits is of no concern to us,those who reside in the nation state; the threat that you pose to the nation state is grave and it cannot stand! We, as reactionary western rightists, argue you must be brought to justice! Not for your crimes in the blowing people to bits department, but in the challenge you represent to the nation state!
Sincerely,
Assorted grad students, undergraduates and community activists.
And, finally (to the relief of many, I know), wny do you care about state terrorism, and less about non-state terrorism? It’s like you are a mirror to some of the right who care about one, but not the other, just reversed. Disappointing.
MD, I gotta disagree with you somewhat.
There’s no real difference between death of one kind or another, right? I mean, death by handgun violence is far more commonplace than death by terrorist attack in the US, yet it does not elicit the same sort of hue and cry that terrorism does.
Security is one aspect of society that the state must maintain. But it should not allow the powers-that-be to circumvent the law in the name of security. It is not the most important business of the state, and lately it’s been used in some bizarrely intrusive ways, many of them downright illegal. In fact, security is being used by some conservatives as reason enough for the President to circumvent the law.
Well, yeah, maybe to a certain extent, but the difference is that terrorists really do exist, and witches didnt.
The point is that the state has to respond with measure. These are the times that rights and principles have to be guarded most vigilantly and fought for most tenaciously because the state will always react disporportinately to a real threat against its citizens, or will be tempted to do so. Opposition to the state comes from defending individual rights and arguing as to why fear-mongering is the wrong thing to do, why profiling is wrong, why rights should not be ceded, why demonisation should be resisted, and not denying that there is a problem in the first place.
Terrorism is a tactic and is here to stay, did it ever really go away?. And anyone or group can choose to practice it. There is mindful terrorism, those with agendas, and mindless terrorism those where the acts of violence are ends in themselves. Technology et al has altered power relationships between the state and the individual such that the individual has sufficient power to alter the course of events.
Everyone is as safe as much as their imagination will allow.
MD, excuse me, but what on earth are you talking about? Who here is minimizing the threat of non-state terrorism? Consider my comment #27 about the nation-state, which Kobayashi, Chachaji and even the brother MoorNam have echoed (now there’s a coalition for you):
You will note that I characterize international terrorism a threat — indeed, that’s the heart of my point — and secondly, that I say that many of the specific problems that state action seeks to remedy today are serious and real problems. It does NOT follow that the state, or the public, or anyone under consideration, should therefore refrain from attempting to deal with these issues. Let’s be clear about that.
My point is a bigger one — a much bigger one that has to do with centuries of world history and therefore doesn’t solve any of our immediate problems in real time. That’s why I didn’t write it into the original post. I’m saying that the way the world functions today has come to exceed the capacity of the nation-state to regulate or control it. Much of this is because of technology and the flow of information, data and knowledge, as well as of goods, services, and money. All of these things have grown in volume and complexity beyond the capability of traditional nation-state frontiers and their guards to police them. Hence the ease with which international terrorist networks form and function; hence also the spread of migration, tourism, travel and trade, cultural frameworks and signifiers, mixed-race and hybrid communities and masterless samurai with no allegiance or loyalty — the whole damn postmodern, globalized, capitalist enchilada.
To the extent these constitute threats (e.g. terrorism, illicit trade/trafficking, money laundering and financial crime), traditional nation states are doing a spectacularly poor job containing or eradicating them.
To the extent these constitute opportunities, traditional nation states are not capitalizing on them. Bureaucracies are bad at innovation. Surely you will agree with me on this.
In sum, the traditional nation state is obsolete. When it faces the transmission of ideas, ideologies, products or services by means of decentralized, acephalous, and stateless networks, it fails to control or regulate them. Therefore, one of two things: Either we need something better/more suited to modern life than the nation state, or the nation state needs to update itself — revolutionize, even — in a hurry. BUT because institutions seek their own short term preservation (anchored to the prospective career cycle of the people who run them at any given time), we are getting neither of these changes. Instead we are getting more money poured into failed approaches. There are a few exceptions here and there, but they are minuscule against the broader trend.
Does any of this mean that we should be ostriches in the face of international terrorist threats? Or course not. It does mean that we shouldn’t embrace policies that are doomed to fail. Or should we?
By the way, I’m not talking out of my arse here. There’s a whole bunch of hard-core analysis coming from such bastions of liberal crunchiness as the RAND Corporation that says what I’m saying here. Dig it.
Yes. YES! Ninjas are our only hope against those godless, shiver-timberin’ pirates. The battle has begun!!