Steven Benen, at the Washington Monthly, takes exception to the fact that the UK is banning political extremists from entering that country:
I can vaguely understand why these measures might be tempting, but it’s developments like these that remind me why U.S. civil liberties are worth appreciating.
I agree with his position that these bans are not a good thing, though I do find it somewhat delicious that Michael Savage is on the list, banned for hate speech. But I must take exception to his warm and fuzzy feelings about our civil liberties. My guess is that this country’s track record on banning people for political reasons is far worse, and of far longer standing, than the UK’s. This is from the New York Times of less than two months ago, discussing a case involving the Bush Administration’s refusal to allow a Muslim scholar to enter the country:
In its most recent brief in the case, last July, the government said both that the courts did not have the power to review such decisions and that the Supreme Court had repeatedly allowed the government to bar foreigners because of their views. The Obama administration has filed no briefs and has given no indication what course it will take.
That was the Bushies making those statements, but they were not always wrong, and their assertion about the Supreme Court is basically correct. I recall reading cases upholding this sort of thing when I was in law school, which was an enlightened age (the dying days of the Warren court) compared to the dark judicial ages in which we now exist. The folks on the Mayflower weren’t the last political dissidents to arrive on these shores, but ever since they arrived those shores have been ever less welcoming. We don’t compare favorably to the UK on this score.
Post a Comment