Welcome to America

Via Andrew Sullivan, a young Icelandic woman recounts her experiences with the new home of the free:

During the last twenty-four hours I have probably experienced the greatest humiliation to which I have ever been subjected. During these last twenty-four hours I have been handcuffed and chained, denied the chance to sleep, been without food and drink and been confined to a place without anyone knowing my whereabouts, imprisoned. Now I am beginning to try to understand all this, rest and review the events which began as innocently as possible.

You see, in 1995 she overstayed a visa for three weeks. I remember standing in the Reykjavik airport on a security line with my shoes off, held in my left hand, ready to be placed on the conveyor belt for scanning once I got far enough in line for that to be possible. I stepped forward toward an Icelandic security guy who was checking passports and boarding passes who asked me: "Sir, why aren't you wearing your shoes?" It was a stark reminder, to me, of how accustomed we've become to an ever-escalating series of irrational security measures. What this woman describes is, clearly, well-beyond asking people to take off their shoes, but it's all on a continuum of panic and sheep-like submission to a culture of fear.

Comments

Seems to me this would be a good time for some national candidate to run for office on a Hardingesque platform of "A Return to Normalcy"...

Posted by RKU | December 20, 2007 12:20 PM

I hate to be hugely cynical about this, but the good news is that people might actually pay attention and do something about this madness once they learn that it happens to cute blonde women too.

Posted by DTK | December 20, 2007 12:23 PM

Did they strip-search her? I know many Icelandic women I wouldn't mind stripsearching.

Posted by Omigod | December 20, 2007 12:24 PM

Shut the fuck up, omigod.

Posted by ogged | December 20, 2007 12:27 PM

There was a similar story from two Finnish folk musicians who were performing in Minnesota, who spent many hours in immigration being treated abusively.

In my experience, immigration people display the worst traits of policemen and the most mediocre, pettiest bureaucrats, and I wouldn't be surprised if bigots gravitate toward that job.

With a bureaucracy, it often ceases to matter what the intended purpose of the law was. The law and the enforcement bureaucracy take on a life of their own. It isn't impossible to correct bureaucracies, but in this case the nativist outcry makes correction impossible.

Posted by John Emerson | December 20, 2007 12:31 PM

Counterpoint: The Schipol airport had more security than any I've ever been through, including Ben-Gurion. They quizzed, bugged and pestered me a lot more than people at Reagan do.

Posted by Sam | December 20, 2007 12:35 PM

I hate to be hugely cynical about this, but the good news is that people might actually pay attention and do something about this madness once they learn that it happens to cute blonde women too. Posted by DTK | December 20, 2007 12:23 PM

I don't particularly like being that cynical about it either, but the thing I hate is that you weren't cynical enough.

Did they strip-search her? I know many Icelandic women I wouldn't mind stripsearching. Posted by Omigod | December 20, 2007 12:24 PM

Posted by Cyrus | December 20, 2007 12:38 PM

Interesting story.

Hey, I have an idea, let's take these people in border security and make them in charge of all of our health care too!

Posted by Al | December 20, 2007 12:40 PM

A British singer-songwriter cancelled a show in a festival in Cincinnati because he'd been arrested at JFK. His wife, sister, and friend were coerced to continue on to Cincinnati while god-knows-what happened to him.

Posted by Luke | December 20, 2007 12:47 PM

I'm with Al!

Take doctors out of medicine entirely and let entry-level, non-union workers take over instead.

The amount of cognitive dissonance these assholes must have lived with over the past 7 years (government is bad, lets give government infinite powers, except health care, because, um, HMOs are teh awesome) is staggering.

Posted by Jay B. | December 20, 2007 12:47 PM

I stepped forward toward an Icelandic security guy who was checking passports and boarding passes who asked me: "Sir, why aren't you wearing your shoes?"

Visiting a free country can indeed be very disorienting.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 20, 2007 12:51 PM

The Schipol airport had more security than any I've ever been through, including Ben-Gurion.

Really? At worst, my experience at Schipol as been that, for some reason, they always pick me out of the line to ask some basic questions about why I'm there and what I'm doing in the Netherlands (my cousin lives there). It's more than I typically get elsewhere, but not a big deal.

Hey, I have an idea, let's take these people in border security and make them in charge of all of our health care too!

I have an idea: why don't we demand the same level of service from government officials that serve non-voters as we do from government officials who serve voters? Let's fact the facts here, Al, the reason the immigration officials are such sleazeballs is because YOU would never petitition your congressman to improve their quality of service because it doesn't affect YOU and YOU don't care how non-citizen guests to your country are treated.

Posted by Tyro | December 20, 2007 12:55 PM

One aspect hasn't yet been mentioned: profiling. For ethical and constitutional reasons that I think are open to legitimate debate, the US government has thus far insisted on giving equal scrutiny to people who represent zero risk (or as close to zero as you can imagine in human affairs) based upon their demographic characteristics, and people who represent a lot more risk. There may be sound reasons for this--e.g. spreading the pain and indignity around evenly will keep those indignities in the public eye, while subjecting only the demographically deserving to indignities permits everyone else to ignore them--but it's silly to pretend there isn't a 500-pound gorilla of context to episodes like this.

Posted by Rich | December 20, 2007 1:06 PM

As a courtesy to Americans, to help them feel more secure and 'at home', security folks at several large European airports are willing to inconvenience U.S. travelers. Some are randomly harassed to complete the experience. The trick, and its really no trick at all, is to pick the Americans out of the line.

Posted by rickhavoc | December 20, 2007 1:07 PM

"If you who read this can say: I am not under fire; I am not under torture; I am not on the run; no one in my country is arrested and held without prompt charge and trial; if I hear a noise outside at dawn, I know it is my neighbour or the milkman, not the secret police; then you owe it, to some degree, to the resistance occupied Europe put up to Hitler.
There is a Dutch saying: dead fish float down the stream; live ones swim against it."

The closing paragraph of MRD Foot's history of anti-Nazi resistance in Europe, "Resistance".

Posted by ajay | December 20, 2007 1:11 PM

To elaborate, I first saw this through Sullivan's post (which seems to be down now, for some reason). He spelled out the same thing, that it can even happen to a white woman, with an unvoiced implication something along the lines of "Maybe now people will realize there's a problem." But I didn't think this would matter.

Read the comments to the article, and the comments right here. Most people take her side and apologize on behalf of America, but several say that she broke the law so she should have expected as much. At first I'm tempted to point out logical flaws in that (when was her trial? Do you think every part of her treatment was necessary and legal? Are the personalities of border security people the only problem, or what about the culture in general and the law?), but there's no point. “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.” A little Googling attributed that to Jonathan Swift — maybe should have known.

For some, government like the type mentioned in the article is bad. For others, it's bad but they're willing to see that it might be a necessary evil, that there are always a few bad apples, whatever. For Al, Omigod and the commenters at the article who agree with them, that is what they want from government.

Posted by Cyrus | December 20, 2007 1:15 PM

Yeah, Cyrus, I found those handful of comments on the thread almost more chilling than the woman's story.

Posted by Led | December 20, 2007 1:25 PM

The other flaw in the argument that she broke the law so tough stuff is that the US consulate in Iceland likely issued her a visa. Presumably, before the State Department hands out visas it is checking the person's status and past visits to the US. Presumably, she passed whatever stupid check they have in place. And, only then, with visa in hand, did she board a plane and travel to the US for the weekend to cash in on the weak dollar W's foreign policy has brought.

You don't have to hate America to realize that in this instance this person was treated wrong or to view the militarization of basic law enforcement function in the US as a bad thing. You don't hate your children when you scold them do you?

Posted by po | December 20, 2007 1:45 PM

The other flaw in the argument that she broke the law so tough stuff is that the US consulate in Iceland likely issued her a visa. Presumably, before the State Department hands out visas it is checking the person's status and past visits to the US. Presumably, she passed whatever stupid check they have in place. And, only then, with visa in hand, did she board a plane and travel to the US for the weekend to cash in on the weak dollar W's foreign policy has brought.

You don't have to hate America to realize that in this instance this person was treated wrong or to view the militarization of basic law enforcement function in the US as a bad thing. You don't hate your children when you scold them do you?

Posted by po | December 20, 2007 1:46 PM

With a bureaucracy, it often ceases to matter what the intended purpose of the law was. The law and the enforcement bureaucracy take on a life of their own.

This is particularly evident when you have a bureaucracy that, by definition, isn't dealt with face-on by voters.

The Schipol airport had more security than any I've ever been through, including Ben-Gurion. They quizzed, bugged and pestered me a lot more than people at Reagan do.

I fly through Schiphol a lot. The few minutes of pointed, pertinent questioning at the gate can feel uncomfortable, but it generally demonstrates a lot more clue, and is more focused on its stated purpose, than the border experience in the US.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 20, 2007 1:51 PM

it's all on a continuum of panic and sheep-like submission to a culture of fear

And yet you sneer at the only person running who has explicitly written about the government and its promotion of the culture of fear (here). Do you think Clinton or Edwards or Obama will reign in the DHS? No, they would themselves be afraid of seeming 'weak on terror', or of being blamed for some actual incident of terror. You may write and strike poses on this issue, but it's clearly not very important to you.

Posted by bbartlog | December 20, 2007 1:51 PM

You don't hate your children when you scold them do you?

A Democrat sees his relationship with his country as a parent sees his relationship with his child: one in which the parent is responsible for instilling the child with good values and ensure he grows up with a sense of responsibility and independence that allows the grown-up child to "do the right thing". In a Republican's relationship with his country, he believes that he is the child and that "my parents are the greatest!" and that he should expect regular spankings and, no matter what happens, his daddy can beat up anyone else's daddy.

Posted by Tyro | December 20, 2007 1:53 PM

Rich is probably right. Thanks to Norm Minetta's hang-ups about ethnic profiling, an Icelandic woman is probably more likely to get singled out for this treatment than, say, a Syrian woman.

"The few minutes of pointed, pertinent questioning at the gate can feel uncomfortable, but it generally demonstrates a lot more clue, and is more focused on its stated purpose, than the border experience in the US."

Get out of town, Pseudomonas! You mean a Northern European country has more competent airport security people than we have at the TSA? How can that be?

Posted by Fred | December 20, 2007 1:57 PM

During my last trip to New Zealand, I had to rush to the airport in Dunedin to catch a flight back to Auckland. I got there and was a bit surprised to see all the security checkpoints completely deserted with everyone were just walking through. Turns out that although the airport still had many regional flights left that day, all the "really big planes" had left that morning, so they just gave the security people the rest of the day off..

Posted by keev | December 20, 2007 2:04 PM

po -- No, she probably came on the visa waiver program, which means she just obarded the plane with no checks beforehand.

Posted by Invigilator | December 20, 2007 2:48 PM

For Al, Omigod and the commenters at the article who agree with them, that is what they want from government.

No, this is completely wrong.

This is not what we want. This is what we know we're going to get. Which is why we want less government.

Posted by Al | December 20, 2007 2:59 PM

While I have never been handcuffed to a bench, I have had some interesting experiences entering more than a few countries. The oddest being flying from Boston to Halifx (pre-9/11) and getting the royal treatment from very aggressive yet polite Canadian customs agents. They separated me from my girlfriend, went through all of our baggage, strip searched both of us and detained us for a few hours. Apparently they couldn't believe we were traveling to Nova Scotia in May and didn't have an itinerary. I have receive much rougher treatment in parts of Asia and the Middle East but since this was friendly Canada it was the most jarring and unexpected.

Posted by Halifax sucks ass | December 20, 2007 3:05 PM

The story about this Icelandic woman isn't about racial profiling or the lack thereof at airport security checkpoints. She was going through customs and was dinged because of an old visa violation. I don't condone the rotten treatment she received.

As for airport security if there are going to be random heightened searches it is obvious that they shouldn't conform to any profiling or the people trying to avoid them can simply send along someone who doesn't fit the profile. C.f. many articles by Bruce Schneier and other security experts.

Posted by bemused | December 20, 2007 3:08 PM

profiling blah blah blah

Here's a suggestion: if someone has committed an immigration violation and there's no other reason for supsiction, immigration officials shouldn't disappear them, deprive them of sleep and food, and fully shackle them, no matter where they come from.

Posted by Matt Weiner | December 20, 2007 3:10 PM

I don't read Sullivan's site anymore--but I'm guessing in some way he blamed this on the Clintons. He's spends so much space writing dishonest and disgusting stuff these days, I find it difficult to give him any credibility.

Posted by KC | December 20, 2007 3:12 PM

Note: I also posted this at LG&M.

I've never had anything any remotely this horrible happen to me, but a very weird thing happened the last time I was abroad. The security guy scanned my passport, asked me where I'd been and the purpose for my travel (perfectly normal, of course), then glanced at the computer screen and asked me about when I had last lived in state I did my graduate work in. As I completed my degree and moved away in 1990 and haven't lived there since (although I've been back a few times), this struck me as at least a little strange. What kind of information do they have access to, and why?
Then he started asking me if I'd ever been in a certain city. Since the town name in question was that of a fairly well-known city in another state that I had never been in, I said no. He asked me if I was sure. I said I had never been in that state, let alone the city. Then he said that I had just told him I went to school in that state, so what was my story. It turns out there is a town by that name in the same state I attended grad school in. I had not previously been aware of that, so I said that as far as I knew I had never been in that town, but I didn't suppose I could rule it out. Actually, most of the time I was in grad school I didn't have a car and I seldom left the college town I lived in (sometimes I would not venture more than a mile or two from campus in 2-3 months), so I'm as sure as I can be 17+ years later that I was never in that town. Certainly I have no memory of it.
I have absolutely no idea what that was about, and of course didn't dare ask. It freaked me out a little, to be honest, to the point you might have noticed I haven't mentioned the state or town names in question. Again, I am NOT comparing this experience to the one described in this post, but it still creeps me out when I think about it.

Posted by MS | December 20, 2007 3:13 PM

That is, what bemused said.

Posted by Matt Weiner | December 20, 2007 3:26 PM

This is not what we want. This is what we know we're going to get.

Al, it is a pretty fair pattern that Republicans are against the efficient provision of government services because, in part, they realize that doing so would acclimate people to the idea that "government works," which they believe will send us down a path of totalitarianism. Some of it is conscious, and some of it is unconscious. The unconscious part comes in where when Republicans are tasked with the implementation of government services, they simply don't care enough to demand that they be provisioned effectively. I can only assume that Republicans believe that working people are too stupid to provide decent government services or that they simply thing that training people in customer service -- regardless of whether they are voters -- is too expensive to bother with.

Posted by Tyro | December 20, 2007 3:28 PM

Was just in New Zealand and flying domestic there is a blast. I can get a beer and sit on the lawn outside drinking it while I wait for my flight. Halfway through the flight I realized I'd forgot to put my knife into the bag I checked and then remembered that it didn't matter (no xray or metal detector at most airports). After that I remembered that it used to be this comfortable to fly in America.

On the other hand, customs on reentering the States as a citizen was way easier and less intrusive than I remember it being just before 9/11. Probably had something to do with coming in from a relatively harmless country, but no drug dogs/bomb dogs/etc or anything like that. No searches at all or even questions about agricultural products/etc. Different for the non-Americans waiting in their own line.

Posted by zach | December 20, 2007 3:36 PM

This woman was clearly in violation of US law by overstaying her visa (she does not dispute this). The immigration officials were clearly and properly enforcing the law in detaining her and having her deported. As to the rest of her story about gratuitous mistreatment, I would be highly skeptical considering the source.

Posted by nabalzbbfr | December 20, 2007 3:37 PM

Fred and Rich -

I find it telling that you seem both more concerned with the fact that this happened to a white, European woman than with the fact that this happened at all.

The funny thing is that the people who seem to argue for racial profiling are also the people who seem to argue against affirmative actions and quotas because of the need for a color-blind society. You can't have it both ways. Something that is assault on one's dignity does not become less so because of the race, ethnicity or religion of the person being humiliated.

Posted by Nathan Hale | December 20, 2007 3:48 PM

>I would be highly skeptical considering the source.

Yeah, everybody knows those Icelanders are almost as crafty liars as the A-rabs.

Posted by Spike | December 20, 2007 3:55 PM

This woman was clearly in violation of US law by overstaying her visa ... The immigration officials were clearly and properly enforcing the law in detaining her and having her deported

This reminds me of the time I went to renew my car's registration. Turned out there were a few parking tickets I neglected to pay. As you can guess, the city put out an APB on my car, which was promptly towed. I, myself, had my driver's license confiscated and was then charged with illegally driving a car. Once I documented the fact that I had, in fact, walked over to city hall to renew my registration, they let me out of jail. My expectations about just paying the tickets with an extra fine complaints about the situation fell on deaf ears since, obviously, I had broken the law by not paying my parking tickets. My bad.

Posted by Tyro | December 20, 2007 4:09 PM

nabalzbbfr:
"I would be highly skeptical" - given the context and other similar stories, this is a foolish position. It's not impossible she made it up, but highly unlikely.
"properly enforcing the law" - as if. This episode is as stupid as it is brutal, and that's saying something. Do you think we would have more foreign friends and visitors, or fewer, if she was instead greeted with a courteous "I see you overstayed when you were here in '95. If you need to stay longer this time, please call this number to extend your visa."
It's mystifying that the Republicans are viewed as business friendly when they do so much to destroy the tourist industry.

Posted by peter | December 20, 2007 4:13 PM

nabalzbbfr: I am a traffic cop. If I pull you over for speeding, and then beat you with my nightstick, I'll be glad to know that you'll accept in good grace, since you broke the law.

Posted by Anonymous Cop | December 20, 2007 4:29 PM

This woman was clearly in violation of US law by overstaying her visa (she does not dispute this). The immigration officials were clearly and properly enforcing the law in detaining her and having her deported.

This isn't necessarily the case. There's a three year bar on entry if you overstay by more than 180 days and leave voluntarily, and a ten-year bar if you overstay by more than a year. These are civil penalties.

Future admission under the VWP after a previous overstay, particularly one of less than 180 days, is discretional, so it wasn't a case of officers 'clearly and properly enforcing the law': it was one officer deciding to throw the book at this particular traveller.

So, yet again we see certain Americans pontificate about 'Enforzin teh lawz!1!', when they're remarkably hazy on what those laws (and the implementation guidelines) actually are.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 20, 2007 4:35 PM

Oh, nonsense, Matt. Everybody knows that Americans don't do things like that. That's why it's morally justifiable for us to do things like that.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 20, 2007 5:06 PM

This is not what we want. This is what we know we're going to get. Which is why we want less government.

Al, your posts have made it clear that you in fact want more government. The sole exception is those government actions that transfer money from rich people to poor people. Those, and only those, you disapprove of.

Posted by mq | December 20, 2007 5:10 PM

"The funny thing is that the people who seem to argue for racial profiling are also the people who seem to argue against affirmative actions and quotas because of the need for a color-blind society."

Nathan Hale,

What does affirmative action have to do with profiling? The first is discrimination in favor of under-qualified members of minority groups and the second is using common sense.

If we start suffering a wave of terrorist attacks from Icelandic women, I'd be the first to demand Icelanders get extra scrutiny in our airports. That would be common sense.

Now, it's true that theoretically, Muslim terrorists could recruit ethnic Icelandic women to commit terrorist attacks against us, and if they start doing that in any material way, we should heighten our scrutiny of Icelandic women. Until then, common sense dictates that -- while we give everyone a basic level of scrutiny -- we focus on folks who fit the current profile.

Posted by Fred | December 20, 2007 5:31 PM

Fred, this has nothing to do with "profiling." It has to do with a power-mad use of the law to no good effect.

We already make plenty of "profiling" judgments about who gets admitted to the country via our differing visa requirements, depending on origin. We already abstain from counter-productive "profiling" with regards to whom to search, opting instead for random searches, which are more effective and can't be gamed by a malicious attacker.

Saying that "the problem is profiling" to explain why this tourist was mistreated is just dodging the issue-- which is mismanagement of government services directed at a constituency that has no political recourse with which to complain. That and a paranoia with respect to routine visa violations no more harmful than a traffic violation. In short, you and some others have an axe to grind about "profiling" and decided to raise the issue in a non-relevant forum.

(these sorts of ridiculous actions by border officials have gone on for years, even pre-Sept 11th)

Posted by Tyro | December 20, 2007 5:49 PM

No, this is completely wrong.

This is not what we want. This is what we know we're going to get. Which is why we want less government.

Posted by Al

If you say that most right-wingers in this thread and the linked one don't approve of what happened, it's simply a lie. At the very least, use "I" instead of "we." I agree with Tyro about Republicans and good government - I think it's put very well here - but even if you don't want this kind of government, Omigod apparently does, as does Janusinsocal, Ciarin, Stan_weekes, Buddyc, Mclovin and Hellothere.

A "reasonable" right-winger deserves about as much respect as a believer in intelligent design. And that's probably unfair to the believer in intelligent design.

Posted by Cyrus | December 20, 2007 6:06 PM

What does affirmative action have to do with profiling? The first is discrimination in favor of under-qualified members of minority groups and the second is using common sense.

If we start suffering a wave of terrorist attacks from Icelandic women, I'd be the first to demand Icelanders get extra scrutiny in our airports. That would be common sense.

Fred

The point is that you are quick to point out in the one context that one is "discrimination in favor of under-qualified members of minority groups" while refusing to call the second "discrimination to the detriment of innocent members of minority groups." The common sense fact is that the overwhelming majority of people that will be subjected to profiling are free of any ties to terrorism.

If we accept the fallacy that all terrorists are Muslim/Arab/whatever-category-you-want-here, that does not make the converse even remotely true. What you will have succeeded in doing is creating a two-tiered system to very little effect.

If you want to work up a terrorist profile, you would be better off using things that are more likely to indicate terrorist behavior rather than terrorist activity. The predicate actions undertaken by certain terrorists make them stand out from the crowd far more than their ethnicity. Identifying those actions and that behavior would take actual work and research.

The lazy-man's response in the face of work and research is to call for racial/ethnic profiling instead of doing the background work and getting the human intelligence that stops terrorist plots.

But, I digress. Taking the facts of the linked post as given, do you agree with me that no woman - whether from Iceland or Syria - should have been subjected to the treatment our Icelandic visitor? That's the question. Not whether or not this woman was wrongly brutalized because she is white and we should only be bullying the brown and different.

Posted by Nathan Hale | December 20, 2007 6:13 PM

Tyro,

Profiling isn't "counterproductive" -- it's used in police work all the time, for good reason. The reason we don't do it in airports isn't because we're worried that terrorists will "game the system" (as if future Mohamed Attas will come to the airport disguised as Pippi Longstocking), it's because of political correctness.

Political correctness is also why the ticket agent who checked in Mohamed Atta stopped himself from giving Atta extra scrutiny:

"I said to myself, `If this guy doesn't look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.' Then I gave myself a mental slap, because in this day and age, it's not nice to say things like this," he said. "You've checked in hundreds of Arabs and Hindus and Sikhs, and you've never done that. I felt kind of embarrassed."

Posted by Fred | December 20, 2007 6:23 PM

Since everyone in this thread agrees except the trolls, I'll just highlight the comments upthread about the importance of extending rights and courtesies to all people, regardless of their citizenship status. Al and his ilk are comfortable with those furriners getting abused because they know it could never happen to honest god-fearing Amurricans like themselves. Even though it frequently has and does, especially for Americans who look or act differently.

It's this attitude that makes them cheer for 9iu11ani, whose police force treated minorities and immigrants with the same contempt this tourist encountered, and with more brutality.

Posted by Warren Terra | December 20, 2007 6:32 PM

"Since everyone in this thread agrees except the trolls..."

Translation of this tautology: "Since everyone agrees accept those who don't"

Posted by Fred | December 20, 2007 6:39 PM

Here are some more incidents for you to consider:

"Sharon McKnight, a U.S. citizen, was deported to Jamaica... after INS inspectors at the airport wrongly questioned the authenticity of her U.S. passport and dismissed as fake the birth certificate presented by her waiting relatives as proof of her birth on Long Island. Ms. McKnight, who is 35 years old but has the mental capacity of a young child, was held overnight, in shackles and handcuffs, at JFK International Airport, before being sent back to Kingston, Jamaica, where there was no one to meet her. During her time at the airport Ms. McKnight was given nothing to eat and was not allowed to use the restroom, forcing her to soil herself.

"...Liu Nianchun, a prominent Chinese democracy and labor rights activist who had been repeatedly tortured and arrested in China over a period of 17 years, was detained by the INS as he was returning from addressing a meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission.... He was held at JFK International Airport for 18 hours, shackled to a bench and kicked by an INS officer when he fell asleep.

"...A young woman who fled Haiti after being raped by armed men in a politically motivated attack arrived at JFK International Airport... As she tried, in a crowded room, to describe to male INS inspectors what had happened to her, the INS officer who was acting as interpreter told his colleagues that the woman was lying and that "everything is fine in Haiti." After this interview the young woman was shackled overnight to a bench at the airport. She was also strip-searched, compounding her humiliation.

"...INS inspectors at Oregon's Portland International Airport strip-searched and jailed a Chinese businesswoman, Guo Liming, because they wrongly suspected that her passport had been altered. INS officials later explained that Ms. Guo 'fit the profile' of an illegal immigrant because she was from China and was traveling with another person-her fiancé and business partner. She was not subjected to expedited removal, but she was nevertheless treated abusively by INS inspections. INS officers handcuffed Ms. Guo for the two-hour drive to a local jail and refused to tell her fiancé where she was taken, why she was being detained or how long she would be held. He had to hire a lawyer in order to find out where she had been taken. Ms. Guo spent two nights in jail before forensics experts determined that her passport was indeed valid.

"...A Swiss citizen-employed as an overseas marketing consultant to American film companies -flew to Los Angeles... for meetings to explore possible long-term film production projects. He carried a valid visitor's visa in his valid Swiss passport. When he arrived at Los Angeles International Airport, the INS inspector insisted that he must be coming to live in the United States, even though he had never been employed or earned money here and even though his assets and the large home where he lived with his mother were in Europe. "You're 35 and you reside with your mother?" the INS inspector said. "That's bullshit." The INS inspectors denied him water, food, access to the restroom and permission to make any telephone calls, until he had signed some documents. When he requested his gastritis medication, INS inspectors told him to "shut up." Finally, exhausted, dehydrated, ill, and in need of his medicine, he signed the documents INS presented to him agreeing to withdrawhis application for admission to the United States."

All of these incidents, and many more, are recounted in a report dated October, 2000, and all of them occurred in the Climate of Fear fostered during the Clinton Oppression. That was Al Gore's America for you. Hillary's, too. Oh, the horror...the horror...

Posted by Danube of Thought | December 20, 2007 8:28 PM

Those interested in reading more of the depredations inflicted by the Clintonian Barbarians at the INS may do so here:

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/refugees/reports/due_process/due_process.htm

Posted by Danube of Thought | December 20, 2007 8:36 PM

Thank you, Danube, for the telling anecdotes indicating that this is serious problem is one of long standing. I continue to suspect that the culture of fear that leads to treatment like that accorded to Maher Arar has likely worsened the problem, but it clearly is an institutional problems rather than a partisan one. Surely that should make it more worrisome, not less.

That said, I don't really understand the motivation for the snarky 'the horror, the horror' bit.

Posted by Warren Terra | December 20, 2007 8:46 PM

Danube, the evidence you have presented demonstrates that this is an ongoing problem that needs to be addressed, not dismissed. You seem to think this is an issue of which politician deserves the blame. I would submit that its close-minded isolationist attitudes that deserve the blame. But finger pointing is not relevant. What steps would you take to solve this problem?

Posted by Spike | December 20, 2007 8:46 PM

Shorter Danube of Thought:

We've always treated furriners like this.

We've always been at war with Iran.

We've always tortured people.

America has always been a theocracy.

You see? I guess nothing changed after 9/11 and Bush. It is all left-wing hysteria.

Except when it is convenient to argue that "everything" changed on 9/11.

Posted by jim | December 20, 2007 9:22 PM

Political correctness is also why the ticket agent who checked in Mohamed Atta stopped himself from giving Atta extra scrutiny

That's really, really, stupid and dangerous. I'll guarantee I could put together a lineup of Arabs and non-Arabs and no you would screw the whole thing up as would anyone else who physically tried to identify them. If you didn't screw it up, while you are busy shaking down everyone who looks like an Arab to you, your fixation is going to keep you from wondering about the guy that's sweating or behaving oddly. That's not some liberal bullshit either, it's a hard-learned lesson from some incredibly illiberal regimes who don't give a wet fart about hurting peoples feelings and how you run security.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 20, 2007 9:55 PM

Ed Marshall,

Certainly ethnic background isn't the only thing that should be taken into account when profiling, and indeed it isn't. Read the quote again from the ticket agent who checked in Mohamed Atta: he had checked in plenty of Arabs; he wasn't suspicious of Atta because he was Arab per se -- but he did suppress his suspicion and not act on it because Atta was Arab and he was concerned with being politically correct.

If you think banning ethnic profiling in airports (as we have done) makes security personnel more effective, you need to wake up, because that hasn't been the case at all. Instead of focusing on passengers trying to smuggle bombs and weapons aboard (as government testers have repeatedly done successfully) TSA agents have been worrying about old ladies' underwire bras and shaking down an eighty year old veteran wearing a Medal of Honor.

The fact is that the sort of people hired by the anti-meritocracy of the TSA are, for the most part, incapable of making the sort of subtle observations and distinctions to effective profile anyone's behavior. Keeping them from using ethnic profiling too just makes them even less competent.

Posted by Fred | December 20, 2007 10:16 PM

Well, Fred, if they are all that stupid, just give up the game because racial profiling isn't going to help anything. It won't. Israeli's used to do what you seem to think is effective at the airport decades ago and the result wound up waving the Japanese Red Army through, armed with machine guns, while they pissed around with the Palestinian American. In later years bombers dressed up as orthodox Jews got waved through security while security was busy messing with the guy in the keyifah.

As stupid as it sounds, giving the old lady who is behaving oddly does have a benefit, because if it doesn't matter what the old lady does if based on her documented biography she doesn't seem likely to be dangerous, I'll guarantee the next person wanting to cause trouble will show up with that identity and skin color.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 20, 2007 10:36 PM

In the case of the Red Army, racial profiling did help a bit. One of them lost his nerve when the rest of them went on their killing spree, and he just calmly walked away like it was just a coincidence he was there with those other Japanese folk and for obvious reasons that didn't work. I'm a sick bastard because I find it amusing that he thought he would get away with that.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 20, 2007 10:41 PM

What this woman experienced IS the US law enforcement system in all its glory - well, except for the part about being put in a cell with rapists or actual mammalian rats, having your kidneys beaten with nightsticks or stuck with cattle prods if you complain, or being picked up by four guards and had your head slammed against a wall, or the like.

Yes, this is how America treats ALL its citizens when they are even SUSPECTED of being slightly outside the law. Once you're handed over to law enforcement, this is PRECISELY the treatment you can expect in this country - at the local, county, state AND Federal level.

That's why I'm not surprised at anything she went through because IT IS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE IN ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION IN THIS COUNTRY.

Get a clue, folks.

And for those who might mis-interpret my words - yes, I think it's stupid and wrong, even when you allow for certain security requirements in the handling of suspected criminals.

Which is why, as I've said before much to SLC's amusement, the only good cop is a dead cop.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 20, 2007 11:19 PM

Richard,
I have sympathy for your anger, but I nonetheless maintain that the only good cop is ... a good cop. Although getting good cops may take a lot of work.

Posted by Warren Terra | December 20, 2007 11:44 PM

Pretty funny combination indeed...

Let's consider three separate facts.

(1) The Iraq War is clearly the greatest strategic disaster in all of America's modern history.

(2) Fred's numerous posts have pretty clearly indicated that he's a Jewish-activist type.

(3) Fred claims to be a HUGE supporter of ethnic profiling, perhaps even involving rather harsh measures.

Like I said, pretty funny combination indeed...

Posted by RKU | December 20, 2007 11:49 PM

Matt, you are aware that's a complete nutbar site? It's 9-11 Truther, run by Laura Knight-Jadczyk, a nutbar doomsday cultist who claims to receive messages from aliens on her Ouija Board. Google her sometime, you'll get a laugh. Of course, you'll be a little embarrassed you linked her fruitcake site.

Posted by Pat Curley | December 20, 2007 11:55 PM

All of these incidents, and many more, are recounted in a report dated October, 2000, and all of them occurred in the Climate of Fear fostered during the Clinton Oppression. That was Al Gore's America for you. Hillary's, too. Oh, the horror...the horror...

It was the America in which most voters have never entered or left the country as a foreigner, and in which immigration law, policy and implementation have festered for decades. Thanks for making that clear, since it was your point, no?

['Fred' has his own issues. Never mind that airline security pre-9/11 (i.e. pre-TSA) had developed a culture in which frequent flyers dictated the rules, and pissing off someone trying to check in late after paying full fare in first class could get a desk agent fired. The hijackers gamed that particular bit of economic correctness.]

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 21, 2007 12:04 AM

(2) Fred's numerous posts have pretty clearly indicated that he's a Jewish-activist type.

You have him mixed up with someone else. I'll bet a billion dollars on this. Fred is a WASP, and he has a little money and thinks he is a capitalist.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 21, 2007 12:41 AM

I'm not venturing an opinion on the nature of Fred (except that I've always rather pictured him this way), but if you've got a billion dollars to venture I'm sure you could find better ways than speculating on the nature of blog commenters.

Posted by Warren Terra | December 21, 2007 12:49 AM

I don't have a billion dollars to venture, but that would be where I'd throw my money if the return was right.

I've been doing this for a bit.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 21, 2007 1:06 AM

Goodness--

I must say that this poor fellow "Jim" has posted the most incomprehensible nonsense imaginable. Did I mention something about Iran? About theocracy? If the answer to the latter is in the affirmative, which theocracy does the obivously dim-witted fellow think I had in mind? I regret to announce that this Jim dunce is a rather sad case indeed.

And now we turn our attention to this bit of inanity:

"(1) The Iraq War is clearly the greatest strategic disaster in all of America's modern history."

Really? Didn't it result in (a) the removal, and ultimate lawful execution, of a tyrant implacably opposed to our own interests, who in fact had invaded two of his neighbors and fired ballistic missiles into four of them?; (b) the abandonment by Lybia of its entire WMD program; (c) the same abandonment by Iran [if you believe anything the CIA says] by reason of certain "international pressure" in 2003; and (4) the imminent defeat of Al Qaeda in the very place that it declared the primary front in its jihad?

How does this strategic disaster compare to that of the sainted JFK's adventure in Vietnam?

Posted by Danube of Thought | December 21, 2007 1:20 AM

"It was the America in which most voters have never entered or left the country as a foreigner..." Is there some other country in which most voters have in fact done so? Can you think of any country in which a higher percentage of voters than those in America have done so?

"...immigration law, policy and implementation have festered for decades. Thanks for making that clear, since it was your point, no?" Well, actually, no. My point was that bureaucracies the world over cultivate louts who tend to abuse whatever authority they are given.

"...airline security pre-9/11 (i.e. pre-TSA) had developed a culture in which frequent flyers dictated the rules, and pissing off someone trying to check in late after paying full fare in first class could get a desk agent fired." Really? Do you have any evidence to support this strange assertion? I was a pre-9/11 ultra-premier frequent flyer who was frequently pissed off by gate agents when I checked in late after paying full fare, but I never managed to get anybody fired, and in fact only managed to get closer scrutiny from the security types.

Posted by Danube of Thought | December 21, 2007 1:31 AM

Golly, is that you Don Rumsfeld, with your manly talk?

My goodness, maybe you better quit messing around on blogs listen to your defense lawyer, heavens to betsy.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 21, 2007 1:31 AM

[RKU] (2) Fred's numerous posts have pretty clearly indicated that he's a Jewish-activist type.

[Ed Marshall] You have him mixed up with someone else. I'll bet a billion dollars on this. Fred is a WASP, and he has a little money and thinks he is a capitalist.

Intriguing. Why don't you two write little biographical sketches of me, and I'll assign awards for accuracy and creativity? Here, I'll even start you off with some ideas.

How I imagine RKU imagines Fred:

Short, receding hairline on his Jew-fro. Wears over-sized metal-framed eye glasses. Was always picked last in gym. Lives in a basement studio apartment in Brooklyn and works at the Museum of Jewish Garment workers where the first thing he does when he gets to his cubicle is log on to The Atlantic, which he reads while eating his bagel with lox and a schmear. Tried dating women in the past but the ladies on Jdate found his politics too irritating, so now his only companions are two cats, the Internet, and the square bottle of Manischewitz he keeps next to his computer. Sometimes as he holds the bottle in his hand, he fantasizes that it is a Molotov cocktail and he is a young Palmach warrior about to throw it at an Arab armored car... then the alarm goes off and it's time to get ready for another day at the MoJGW.

How I imagine Ed Marshall imagines Fred:

Average height, has straight dirty-blond hair he wears a little too long for his age, combed back or parted to the side, depending on his mood. Looks like he was once an athlete, but the beer gut indicates he has left those days behind him. Lives on a small yacht he keeps docked in Boston Harbor (though he sails it down to St. Bart's for the winter). Has dated a girl he met at Vassar for years, but has resisted her attempts to move onto the yacht. Refuses to be dragged to any of her DAR events. Works intermittently, writing for the Outstanding Investors Digest, which is, fittingly, only published intermittently, and sometimes teaches a little boating or charters his yacht in St. Bart's over the winter. Has a friend who knows Whit Stillman. Imagines himself to be like that guy in the Whit Stillman films who's sort of a dick but people like him anyway. Has some money, but not as much as he likes to think he has -- he gooses his returns by writing covered calls on the blue chip stocks his grandfather left him. Keeps a bottle of Oban by his computer while he peruses the Atlantic blogs.

Posted by Fred | December 21, 2007 1:36 AM

I don't see you as inheriting much of anything. Al, inherited something, that's why he doesn't talk about such things. You have your mom's IBM stock or whatever. If you really had a pile a pile of money I wouldn't know that, because you would have the good sense to be embarassed about it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 21, 2007 1:44 AM

Not IBM, Oil company stock.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 21, 2007 1:45 AM

Interesting, Ed Marshall, but let's flesh it out. I'm going to step away for a snack while you work on that.

Posted by Fred | December 21, 2007 1:48 AM

What would you like to flesh out?

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 21, 2007 1:53 AM

Profiling isn't "counterproductive"

Yes, actually it is, for a reason you yourself point out...

(as if future Mohamed Attas will come to the airport disguised as Pippi Longstocking),

Well, Pippi Longstocking is a fictional character and, while I realize that you Republicans live in a land of fiction and get upset about fictional stories, that's really not an issue here. The issue is that you are convinced that terrorists are too stupid to game the system, and that's why other, more qualified people are in charge of security, and not you.

Randomizing algorithms is the only way to defeat a determined attacker. You make the mistake of thinking you're smarter than an attacker. You're not. In fact, the people who are convinced of their own intelligence and think that their opponents are stupid are generally the least intelligent (see Bush, George W. and Bremer, Paul.).

Posted by Tyro | December 21, 2007 2:01 AM

"What would you like to flesh out?"

The biographical sketch. I gave you two a couple of samples to get you started.

"The issue is that you are convinced that terrorists are too stupid to game the system,"

It's not a question of stupidity, but capabilities. Sure, Muslim terrorists are smart enough to 'game the system' by using to ethnic Icelandic women hijackers. Similarly, the CIA is smart enough to 'game the system' by using ethnic Pashtuns fluent in Dari to infiltrate Osama bin Laden's hideout on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. In the real world though, we're short on ethnic Pashtuns loyal to our cause and the Muslim terrorists are short on Icelandic women loyal to theirs. That's why it makes sense to include ethnicity in profiling.

"and that's why other, more qualified people are in charge of security, and not you."

You really believe the best and brightest are running the TSA?

Posted by Fred | December 21, 2007 2:14 AM

I've never had my passport processed when leaving the US by DHS/INS. So how do they know when she left in 1995?

Did they have fingerprinting or scanning in 1995 for citizens of Iceland? If not, how did they know that she was the same person who supposedly overstayed in 1995? There's no possibility she has the same passport from 12 years ago is there, so how did the government know?

My guess is they asked if she ever visited and if she ever overstayed. She said yes and as a result, most likely self-incriminated herself. As other posters have posited, we have no idea what her response was to this situation.

When a million guys named Pedro run across the border every year, my guess is that Icelanders aren't a problem. Having said that, here is the statement of eligibility on the US embassy Icelandic website:
Intend to enter the United States for 90 days or less;
Have a machine readable passport issued to you by Iceland;
Be a national of the Visa Waiver Program country that issued your passport;
Not have failed to comply with the conditions of any previous admission under the Visa Waiver Program;
Not have overstayed any previous visa;
Not have been refused issuance of a visa;
If arriving by air or sea, you must arrive aboard an approved carrier (not a charter);

If you do not meet the requirements of the Visa Waiver Program, you must obtain a visa prior to travel

It seems pretty clear doesn't it?

Posted by Neil | December 21, 2007 2:27 AM

Fred, here's how I imagine you, SLC, Al, Chris and the rest of the neocon/rightwing/Zionist trolls:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2AN7kBQOsw

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 21, 2007 2:58 AM

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/12/business-as-usu.html

Oh dear. Total ownage. Poor Matthew.

Posted by a | December 21, 2007 3:11 AM

Matt Weiner's said this before. How many times does it have to be said? The issue here has nothing to do with profiling.

The problem is not that the abusive treatment was targetted at someone unlikely to be a threat; the problem is purely and simply that the lady was badly treated. She was not detained for being a threat, and even if she had been one, making sure she is frightened and uncomfortable for hours on end would not make her any less threatening. It's funny that for some people nowadays the subtext of incidents like this is that if the person in question were not statistically unlikely to be a threat, it would have been okay to mistreat her.

No-one is saying it's an outrage that she was denied entry to the US, if she did indeed overstay her visa in the past (though it does seem kinda pointless not to provide some avenue that would obviate the need for her to return to Iceland).

Around 1991, I was ordered off a train at the Czech border. I didn't have a visa, because I hadn't realized that the train was going to be passing through Czechoslovakia. The ex-communist border policeman was polite, and simply left me in a waiting room, with my luggage, so I had something to read, until the next train the other way.

If the INS had been similarly polite, left the lady unshackled, and had given her a cup of coffee and a Danish while asking her some questions, no-one would have been denouncing her treatment. But no, they had to act like the Gestapo.

Posted by Amit | December 21, 2007 3:41 AM

If the INS had been similarly polite, left the lady unshackled, and had given her a cup of coffee and a Danish while asking her some questions, no-one would have been denouncing her treatment. But no, they had to act like the Gestapo.
Posted by Amit | December 21, 2007 3:41 AM

YES YES YES.
This is the point.
It is the damn liscence these INS GOOONS take when they have something on someone that drives me insane. They are sooo mindlessly INHUMAN in their treatment of "violators". That service needs to be decimated and reintegrated into something professional and polite. Enough with the prison guard mentality and tough guy personas.
I had one senior INS asshole in Plattsburgh NY convince himself that I was illegally immigrating to the US when all I wanted to do was shop. I have never fucking forgiven him for the needlessly abusive treatment he gave me and despite consciously knowing better, I have always thought less of America as a country because of his actions. (American individuals can be the most wonderful people on earth but some of your institutions ... Jesus do they SUCK)

Posted by Northern Observer | December 21, 2007 10:53 AM

Ed Marshall:

Well, Fred seems to post an awful lot on Israel, the Mid-East, the evils of Arabs/Muslims, the cowardice of the anti-War people, as well as occasionally on various domestic Jewish issues such as the threat of anti-Semitism.

Also, I'm pretty sure he's actually said he's Jewish on several occasions, most recently a couple of days ago.

Now it's possible my memory is playing tricks on me, but offhand I think you should be very glad you don't really have a billion dollars...

As for the rest, I don't have a clue whether he lives in Crown Heights or Great Neck...

Posted by RKU | December 21, 2007 12:03 PM

Um, what Pat Curley said.

Did you not even look at that site? It's completely deranged. It's got everything: 9-11 Twoofer nonsense, Jew hatred, UFO conspiracies.

Did you not see "American Jews on War and Peace: What Do the Polls Tell Us and Not Tell Us?"

or "UFOs and the National Security State"

or "Ultra-terrestrials and 9-11"

or "The Myth Of The Palestinian Suicide Bomber"

Matt, you and Sullivan have really stepped into the fever swamp on this one.

Posted by CTD | December 21, 2007 12:20 PM

Um, what Pat Curley said.

Did you not even look at that site? It's completely