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.]
err
a multifaceted approach is always required because what the human personality will identify with is now more mixed.
Since power now is more decentralized and amorphous, securing the behavior of the individual is impossible but cannot be ignored.
paradise i mean paradigm lost.
Yes Siddhartha, but what about the human need to be ‘tribal’, and identify with a particular group (or religion, or race, or culture)? Nation-states at this point in time still command a lot of loyalty and often produce a strong emotional response from their citizens. A lot of pride in many cases. Do you think that will gradually fade away?
how to handle uncertainty –
stay diverse. stay vigilant. trust noone uncluding yourself. dont stay
past results underestimate future catastrophic negative returns
DJ DP:
Pirates are cooler than ninjas.
The concept of the state was always a fiction, but nonetheless a more palatable fiction than others. The other fiction few people care to discuss is the multiple personas and inherent polarities within the individual. Now that trickle down power economics is now pooling in the palms of the individual, we are now all the more wondering who the hell we are.
Siddartha,
what do you think is going to replace the nation-state? Please oh please don’t say metanational corporations.
If you think nation states are bad, wait until the metanats get rolling.
Salil:
Ninjas are WAAAY cooler than pirates.
Dude, seriously. Did you bring enough acid for errbody?
I mean, about 60 quadrillion people would probably disagree with the whole “state is a fiction” thing. It’s no more a fiction than laws, or schools, or continents, or words. It’s a human fiction, and we’re humans, so try and contribute something, hey? All you’re going to find in there is navel lint. We can talk about the nature of the individual at some later point.
Nation states are a relatively new phenomenon. – I would say about less than 300 years. – I am not sure that Nation State concept has peaked, but it is definately been chalanged big time due to globalization. – Pre-Nation states era was also the era when human movement was severely restricted. – Human tribal need to belong to a group is basic in my opinion and will remain so, but with EASE of MOVEMENT dwelling amongst your tribesmen may not remain as important as it has been in past. – One last point, the EASE of MOVEMENT has a long way to go in terms of development as true EASE of MOVEMENT (and Globalization) came after the creation of the JUMBO JET in 70’s. So it has a lot more room to improve and as it improves it will put further stress on traditional nation state.
he wants to talk logic and philosophy give some substance to reality a wind slaps his face he chases the wind for an apology.
Have the Americans said they’re not going to let British citizens of Pakistani descent travel to the US? No, they haven’t. They want them to get a visa. So what’s wrong? It’s no secret how a section of British citizens of Pakistani descent happen to have a hand, direct or indirect, in almost every terrorist plot uncovered, and how the trail invaliably leads to Pakistan.
Better safe than be sorry even if it means this will inconvenience those British citizens of Pakistani origin who have nothing to do with terrorism and are peace loving.
Political correctness has only served to push issues under the carpet that actually need to be taken by the scruff of the neck. Good luck to you.
I rub my saffron balls on the scruff of their neck! And push them under the carpet to chase political correctness to death!
Hail Visa Requirments for mleccha Limeys!
Hail Mogambo!
they pushed the issue under the carpet when their conscious wasnt looking and when the aroma of saffron met their neck, they realized what they had forgotten
saffron mangos of course
Kobayashi:
Problem w/ that theory is that we’re not at war w/ terror, just islamic terror (actually fascism). no one really cares about the anti-abortion terrorists b/c their ideology doesn’t threaten liberal democracy and they have no access to WMDs from nation-states like iraq, paikistan, and iran.
in fact, the same fellow leading the war is pushing globalization and not enforcing illegal immigration laws, two great threats the nation-state.
in short, its ideology and wmds.
Dude, seriously. Did you bring enough acid for errbody?
Salil and Siddhartha, ya’ll are my baby’s daddies…;)
No really, I’ve been fascinated by this discussion and you guys have articulated something I’ve felt in the making but didn’t know how to express as far as the nation-state becoming obsolete. I’m thinking that individual states rights (think pre-civil war, w/out the race baggage)are going to become more popular/controversial. Instead, states rights/local laws will reflect federal laws less and less and each locality will have it’s own guidelines of what is acceptable as far as immigration goes AND adapt to trends more quickly. I’m not saying whether it’s good or bad but I think that is where the nation-state is going. I’m not sure if this is the best example but VA beach just recently changed the way police talk with undocumented workers and it’s getting a lot of coverage.
MD:
You’re very colourful these days. Like a breath of fresh whisky.
coach diesel,
Well, that rise of individual empowerment that Siddartha refers to would definitely point to something like localized groupings of political and social leanings. Something akin to states’ rights again? Maybe more like rights of locales? That’s in America, where individual empowerment is taken to a ridiculous extreme on occasion. We can see the general direction of this trend. VA is a prime example of localized looniness contradicting federal laws, more or less unchallenged. There was that Fairfax concealed-weapon law, for instance…and your example.
Definitely flies in the face of gogol’s trippy hippie screed. All that Zen koan we-are-one-underneath-our-hairy-exterior crap don’t mean much when roving crowds with machetes chop up your kids, or you’re being herded into ovens, or don’t have enough to eat, hmm? Enlightenment kind of takes a backseat to survival on Maslow’s pyramid.
Manju:
um. what? No one cares about abortion terrorists? Islamic terrorists? WMDs from Iraq?
Methinks it’s Time For An Announcement.
THUMP
squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal
HELLO, MUTINEERS? DO NOT EAT THE BROWNZ ACID. I REPEAT, DO NOT EAT THE BROWNZ ACID. THANK YOU.
oh yeah, and how come you dint tell me ize not yo babyz only daddy too? Dammit, I bin sharin wimmins agin.
Terrorism is to the state as witchcraft is to the medieval church. The slightest whiff of it, and the authorities go batshit.
Love it! Give me your address. Dinner is on me my man.
What exactly is irrational with the proposal? The high-testosterone Pakistanis need to be checked. These low caste converts have pretenses of being a martial race. And another thing, they are sick and tired of white men with an Asian fetish stealing their girlfriends.
I think this has been increasingly reflected in post world war history. It is no longer sufficient for powerful states to amass wealth, guard their borders, flourish as a culture, etc. To stay in power they need to ensure that their own ideology is embraced by the entire world. The U.S.’s drive to spread democracy and capitalism is an example of this.
there is no unity in the aggregate if there is no unity within the self.
all convos are footnotes to this. save ya breath.
to control the herd, simply remove any sense of power or create a fiction of disability and feed them often.
Really? And what do you think has replaced it?
Comparing terrorism in today world’s to witchcraft in the medieval church time period is a joke.
Comparing terrorism in today world’s to witchcraft in the medieval church time period is a joke.
Kobayashi was comparing the respective reactions.
they talked and talked and talked spilt theories ideas hopes and fears until they were dry. And after contracting in their dismay they recoiled to rearrange everything that was said. just because they could.
Exactly. The brits need to be held accountable for spawning these monsters. Wahhabi terrorism is a british colonial creation. Most of you have probably seen the movie “Lawrence of Arabia”. The terrorist T.E. Lawrence is probably the quintessential brit colonial romantic hero; and the british (and anglo-americans) have had a love affair with the muslim fundamentalist, saudi wahhabis since Lawrence of Arabia’s successful terrorist exploits against the Ottoman Turkish Empire. The Anglosphere’s support of muslim jihadis against the Soviets in Afgjanistan can be seen as Part II of this same drama. What we are seeing is called Blowback in CIA terminology.
I am sorry I feel cranky today, but this is a serious topic that deserves analysis. The touchy-feely stream-of-consciousness comments are just spammy. Dude, if you gotta make a point, make a point.
If the British should be blamed for anything it is there immigration policy of the 60’s and 70’s that let so many people in from countries like Pakistan.
I bet people in England who spoke out against such high number of immigrants from that part of the world, during that time. Are now saying I told you so. In alot of other countries in Europe they are probably saying the same thing.
Nothing tangible as of yet. A little earlier in the thread Salil asked:
I have no idea. And whatever it is, (a) people will probably realize it after the fact, and (b) it probably won’t even have happened, let alone become clear, in our lifetimes. We are living in a time of decay of the nation-state, and that decay will be ongoing when we die, just more pronounced than it is at this point. That’s my sense of things.
I agree and am cleaning up the thread accordingly.
Ok, I got it wrong again. Can Siddhartha take my other two incorrectly italicized comments off……much thanks!
If the British should be blamed for anything it is there immigration policy of the 60’s and 70’s that let so many people in from countries like Pakistan. I bet people in England who spoke out against such high number of immigrants from that part of the world, during that time. Are now saying I told you so
Those visionaries predicted the rise of global salafist terror along with the radicalization of Pakistani society from the Afghanistan war and terrorism in Kashmir or Were they knee jerk xenophobes…………..also were they also protesting the immigration from Indian Punjab and Bangladesh and about future Polish plumbers………….
The all or nothing approach described in the article is a good argument for a more robust domestic intelligence program on both sides of the pond. It is the best way to focus on the problems and let normal people live, well, normally.
MI5 is a good organization but the constant attack it is under by leftist elements in the UK undermine its ability to operate. As far as the FBI is concerned, it is not designed to be an intelligence agency.
The trouble is when people hear domestic intelligence they automatically freak out. It can be lawfully but it requires a serious, thoughtful approach. Perfect for an election year.
Mujahid, you should get some rest. Don’t worry, the world will still be fucked up in the morning.
Mujahid, you should get some rest. Don’t worry, the world will still be fucked up in the morning.
I know! I am off to dream land and visions of Lakers charging back to defeat the Suns…
I notice that among the comments here, there are two divergent forms of government that seek to replace the current nation-state model. On one hand, there seems to be the focus towards more local governance that places a higher emphasis on individual liberty (the libertarian perspective); while the opposite position is that we should manage to devolve into one unified borderless global entity.
Assuming that I have understood these points correctly, I still have doubts about either scenario.
Firstly, we see smaller states uniting to form larger collective forms of government, the EU is moving gradually towards a United States of Europe and Vladimir Putin certainly seems keen on bringing the former Soviet bloc countries within some kind of socioeconomic hegemony (witness the natural gas deals with its poorer neighbours). Small states respond quickly to individual concerns and government is a lot more nimble. But risks are best mitigated when you aggregate them — economic or strategic risks.
Secondly, I have an issue with a pan-global government since I don’t think such an entity will be able to address the concerns of the poor and the disenfrancished. The marginalized typically have a bigger challenge to communicate their grievances and effect change when governments are more remote. That is the reason why the poor and minorities form voting banks. Since there are more poor people than wealthy people in the world, in a democracy their vote against such a pan-globbal government would seem to win.
Also, the above statements are how I understand the situation. I am willing to be corrected.
that should read “two divergent views on the type of government that seek to replace…” in the first sentence. I am not suggesting that the commenters are anarchists who will effect coups (bloody or otherwise) and bring in the New World Order 🙂
DDiA,
GREAT comment in #136.
I have to dig up the article but Dani Rodrik reads the tea leaves and sees a fluid global federalism shaping.
AMJD they more then likely may have been kneejerk xenophobes, but the doesn’t change the fact that immigrants from Pakistan are causing more problems then those are from India in England. It may not be a PC thing to say but that is the truth. Some leader of the sikh and hindu groups in England want to be known as British Sikh’s and British Hindu’s instead of South Asian.
Look at rest of Western Europe, many people in those countries want to limit immigration, especially from a certain part of the world. Right wing anti immigrant polictical groups are started to gain more support in many of those countries that they did not have 10 years ago.
Coach, this might be more true in nation-states which have a lot of regional cultural or ethnic diversity within them…like India or Pakistan. In America, I suppose some regional patterns could become stronger, leading to variations in policy or at least a demand for more autonomy…but I don’t think the unit would be the individual state per se, but more likely the larger region (the South, the Midwest, etc).
Thanks No von Mises. I look foward to the Rodrik article on federalism. I still believe that a federal system needs an ‘us versus. them’ raison d’etre. That is how Russell(not the comedian, the logician :)) argues for nation-states as welll.
Rodrik (per this topic, it gets relevant around p. 16):
He goes on to say,
Ya know, the whole Rodrik paper is relevant to this discussion at the macro level that Siddhartha rightly mentioned upthread. Fascinating stuff. I’ve lost many many nights of sleep thinking about stuff like this.
Damn it, I left out the best part, the trilemma!-
Thanks NvM, now I can put off writing my conference paper even though the deadline is a week away.
I should add that Rodrik just started a blog too.
Chachaji, I meant a database that would incorporate British intelligence and police records, presumably the fear on the part of the Americans is that folks with a history would not have to go through a check on the British side because of the visa waiver and it would be up to the US to do the legwork in deciding who was admissible and who wasn’t.
Very amused to read discussions of fading nation state and Dani Rodrik, taken back to IPE classes and comps, hehe.
It’s all wonderful philosophical banter. And noone really has a good idea of the end result but everyone is fantastic at commenting on the actual processes involved. And I am no different, sometimes. I am hoping finite resources, a few pandemics and perhaps a re-invasion of dinosaurs will be the forces from without that will encourage people to assume a less narcisstic form of identity and we may all benefit from that. We humans are poor at using forces from within or being proactive unless it is about treating acne with that cream from jessica simpson.
Regardless, the majority of people are not motivated by most of the stratospheric arguments displayed above. For them, their self definition comes from the land, religion, consumption etc And I can’t see that changing in our lifetime. Likewise, the fiction of the nation state would seem to have plenty of play left. And therefore threats of terrorism against it.
On a more equal playing field, the most basic forces that govern human beings will perhaps become more influential in the future as we have more ‘confrontations’ with the other who is gradually becoming more like us.
by the way we will all be dead by 2107. mark your calendars.
Amen, my friend.
This is the article I was talking about above (#29) Charles Tilly’s War making and State Making as Organized Crime ; (cit: Bringing the State Back In edited by Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). Relevant to the discussion above, I think (here’s the pdf link)
NVM – thanks for the Rodrik article. I love his work (I was reading his poverty funding article in the new JEL this week, really interesting!).
I think the U.S. is finally realizing that if you want security you should apply your controls evenly and across the board. While I am really thankful that I don’t have to file for a visa to be in the UK, I know that this is fundamentally based in some racist ideas. The visa waiver policy was not created for brown people in the U.S. and UK. That said, given how much crap people in other nations have to go through just to enter/travel through both regions, I think it’s more fair and pays greater attention to the changing nature of migration and security. After all, the folks who hijacked plans on 9/11 did not come through Mexico, they came through “less secure” ports of entry. I’m not saying it’s right, but if you’re going to screw everyone, why not screw them all equally?
Ok, not to pull the elitist card, but my undergrad thesis was on British migration policy, economic development, and political action among its “visibly ethnic minority” communities. The statement that immigrants from Pakistan cause more problems may seem on its face to be accurate, but is pretty fucked up if you look at the context of how folks were treated, British race/poverty/education/migreation policy, the nature of British “integration” policies, and the strong level of alienation that exists primarily among Bangladeshi Muslims and then Pakistani Muslims. To take it one step further, the largest “terrorist minority group” in the UK prior to the 1990s were the Irish, not Pakistanis (who had been there in very large numbers for 20 years at that point). I understand why people think that Brits of Pakistani origin are more to blame, but I think it’s really important to look at everything in perspective. I also think it’s important to recognize that folks are Britons, and according to poll data, many of those Black Britons born in the UK would say so! The conversation on how fucked up it is to be asked if you’re “more British or more Pakistani” can happen at another time. I also think it’s important not to villify or lump everyone from this super diverse and widespread community into the same group of “extreme politics.” The Black community in the UK is way complicated and diverse, and I don’t think it’s accurate or easy to understand it in simple “national origin” terms. Maybe this is another case for not using nation-state analysis to determine policies or effects, but it is historically inaccurate and inappropriate to comment on modern phenomena without recognizing how both the UK and US have contributed to the rise of “extreme politics” both abroad and within their borders.