Great Moments in Counterterrorism

Left Sudan as a refugee when you were a little kid and grew up in Canada? Well, no visa for you:

Shooting guard Bol Kong has drawn interest from a number of universities and recently received a scholarship offer from Gonzaga. It is the defense he has met off the court that has slowed him -- and could prevent him from ever playing for the Bulldogs or anyone else in the United States. Kong, 20, is originally from Sudan, which is listed by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism. Although he has lived in Canada since age 7, he does not hold citizenship there. He has been denied a visa to study in the United States three times, and it is unclear if he will ever satisfy the requirements for entry.

I'm sure this kid's a huge threat and I, for one, am glad that he'll be wreaking his havoc north of the border.

Comments

I overheard Michelle Obama's brother saying he can drop bombs from downtown.

Another conspiracy averted.

Posted by southpaw | June 6, 2008 4:45 PM

Nothing new here: back in the 1940s, LA had a large population of German refugees from Nazi horrors. The local, yokels reacted strongly against these refugees when they dared speak German as "we're at war against the Germans".

What is it that HL Menken said about underestimating the intelligence of Americans?

Posted by DAS | June 6, 2008 4:47 PM

This is really unacceptable. We should start an online petition to give him a visa.

Posted by Craig McGillivary | June 6, 2008 5:05 PM

In the "Application For Immigrant Visa" there is a specific question:

"Do any of the following classes apply to you?"

"c. An alien who seeks to enter the United States to engage in espionage, sabotage, export control violations, terroirst activities...or who is a member of a terrorist organization...." (emphasis added)

It seems that all the Department of Homeland Security needs to do is review the applications and keep track of the terrorists. Then DHS would know that none of the other immigrants are terrorists because the immirgrants checked the box "No".

I wish they had figured this out before 9-11.

Posted by neil wilson | June 6, 2008 5:22 PM

Sounds like the entire visa process has been out sourced to some neocon company. The visa applications are only touched by human hands as it is scaned into the computer. A program loooks for key words like Sudan and a rejection letter is generated. Oh...and the name is added to the no fly list.

Posted by jerri | June 6, 2008 5:25 PM

I'm just pissed that, thanks to Homeland Security, I'll never see a basketball jersey that says "KONG" on the back.

And I don't even like basketball.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | June 6, 2008 5:37 PM

Make a difference. Please sign the online petition below both to get Bol Kong a visa and to change the policies that lead his visa to be denied.
http://www.petitiononline.com/BolKong/petition.html

Posted by Craig McGillivary | June 6, 2008 5:41 PM

Bol Kong highlights.

Posted by ogged | June 6, 2008 6:38 PM

It's really quite simple. If you don't give people authority to use judgement when applying the rules, you get stupid results. Happens all the time.

But if you do give them flexibility, then when the one in a million chance comes up and there is a mistake which costs lives, there will be screams of outrage. Far louder than the disgusted reactions to something like this case, where the results are merely silly, but nobody is dying as a result.

So the safe course is to allow no flexibility. Combined with hiring people who have no inclination to do anything but mindlessly apply the rules that they are handed.

Of course, you could try educating people about little details like the fact that the world can never be made 100% safe. But that would take work, in addition to its other negative side effects on politicians, so it will never happen.

Posted by wj | June 6, 2008 7:26 PM

To paraphrase Dan Patrick, "You can't stop Bol Kong! You can only hope to detain him!"

Posted by joejoejoe | June 6, 2008 7:54 PM

I saw him giving his teammates the 'terrorist fist jab'—and not just once, but several times.

Posted by cha cha cha | June 6, 2008 8:07 PM

Excuse the expletive please, but aren't a great many of those working for various government bureaucracies a blithering cesspool of fucktards?

Posted by steve duncan | June 6, 2008 9:32 PM

aren't a great many of those working for various government bureaucracies a blithering cesspool of fucktards?

In this case, the immigration bureaucracy is woefully underfunded and used as a political plaything whenever some xenophobe pols need to show their districts that they're Tough On The Them. So you get a morass of laws and regulations that the people in the department have to turn into something coherent, or at least workable, and that often leaves little room for human judgement unless the applicant is already in the US and can get a congresscritter on-side.

The problem he's likely to face now, even if he gets a Canadian passport, is that his failed applications will count against him.

(For comparison's sake, Luol Deng, who also left Sudan as a refugee, didn't become a British citizen until 2006, but went to Blair Academy in NJ in the late 90s.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 6, 2008 11:23 PM

Bol Kong isn't the only one. Try getting a tourist visa for a Tibetan refugee. I traveled to Chennai and talked to the Consul myself to help my friend. My friend was rejected because the Consul felt that I couldn't support a human being for six months. And he acknowledged that I could write a check that exceeds most family incomes in America, and it would clear as fast as any wire transfer. But I'm still not rich enough to support another human being. How's that work? The immigration authorities don't have to justify anything, and there's little recourse to any decisions they make.

But at least Bol Bong might get special consideration. Good for him. And I'm not being bitter or sarcastic, I really hope he can get in. The Tibetans have the concept of 'Mudita' (enjoying the good fortune of others) and my friend would be glad Bol got in. My friend loves basketball, you know.

Posted by fostert | June 7, 2008 1:52 AM

If you don't give people authority to use judgement when applying the rules, you get stupid results.

You may not have been following the news closely. The INS believes itself to be superior to the courts, and found a way to work around a court decision. This is not a matter of people not having authority. This is what happens - everywhere, all around the world, when petty bureaucrats are given power with no accountability.

People in the US are fortunate not to have encountered this phenomenon much, so far, and so may mistake it for "good-hearted government officials lacking the discretion to apply their judgement, and having to blindly follow the rules". No, No, No! (or to quote McClatchy, Hogwash, Hogwash, Hogwash!)

Listen to this story, if you can:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1236

"Act Two. This American Wife.

This American Life contributor Jack Hitt uncovers a strange practice within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. If a foreign national marries a U.S. citizen and schedules an interview for a green card, but the U.S. citizen dies before the interview takes place, the foreign national is scheduled for deportation with no appeal—even if the couple has children who are U.S. citizens. Jack talks with Brent Renison, a lawyer who's representing over 130 people in this situation, mostly widows, who are seeking to overturn the Immigration Service's rule. (20 minutes)"

Posted by Arun | June 7, 2008 8:47 AM

In continuation of the above, Brent Renison won the following ruling:

"Freeman v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2006)
(addressing two issues of first impression, the court first held that an alien who applied for adjustment of status while in the United States under the visa waiver program (VWP) was not bound by the VWP no-contest proviso waiving the right to contest removal action, and further held that an alien whose citizen spouse died while her adjustment of status application was pending remained an immediate relative, despite being widowed after less than two years of marriage; reported in Interpreter Releases, 83 IR 876, Vol. 83, No. 19, May 8, 2006)"

-- The INS was trying to deport a woman because her spouse died while her green card application was being processed; and when the court ruled thusly, the INS found another rule, unappealable, in the US Patriot Act, under which to deport her. This requires active malevolence, and completely contradicts notions of "people stupidly bound by the rules".

Normally, visa arrangements between countries is reciprocal. The pity is that only Brazil has had the balls to treat Americans at the visa queue like Americans treat the rest of the world; and only when sufficient Americans suffer through the indignities of the INS will they be impelled to seek change.

It is not about this-rule or that-rule; it is about giving a branch of government unchecked power (albeit in a limited sphere); a minor version of George W Bush's executive powers.

Posted by Arun | June 7, 2008 9:00 AM