Skip to comments.2 Lodi residents refused entry back into U.S.
Posted on 08/27/2006 4:59:42 PM PDT by tobyprissy
2 Lodi residents refused entry back into U.S.
Demian Bulwa, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Jaber Ismail, 18, (right) is seen with his younger brothe...
* Printable Version * Email This Article
(08-26) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- The federal government has barred two relatives of a Lodi man convicted of supporting terrorists from returning to the country after a lengthy stay in Pakistan, placing the U.S. citizens in an extraordinary legal limbo.
Muhammad Ismail, a 45-year-old naturalized citizen born in Pakistan, and his 18-year-old son, Jaber Ismail, who was born in the United States, have not been charged with a crime. However, they are the uncle and cousin of Hamid Hayat, a 23-year-old Lodi cherry packer who was convicted in April of supporting terrorists by attending a Pakistani training camp.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
About time we started doing this!
"About time we started doing this!"
You might feel differently if they were doing this to you.
Then again, REAL Americans would never leave the United States, would they?
What, pissing on our own citizens? How about giving them a revocation/deportation hearing first?
Why would "they" do this to me?
I know, the terrorists relatives took a "vacation" in Pakistan.
To spend 4 years in a Pakistani terrorist training camp? I doubt it.
They may have had legal American papers, but I'd call them "infiltrators" and not Americans.
I think muslims rights are lesser than us filthy infidels. In America they are the dhimmis and should be made aware of it! They started this war and we should end it.
I don't know how they can keep the 18 year old citizen from reentering without opening themselves up to a massive law suit.
As for the Resident Alien adult, he's toast and we can refuse his entry and strip his residency with ease.
Of course, I meant "concise."
Hayat later said that Ismail and another relative "didn't talk to me about going to camps or anything. But you know I'm sure they went to the camp ... 'cause they memorize the Holy Quran.
"I don't care if they are citizens or not."
Maybe you think YOU will get better treatment than these guys, huh? Think again. If the US Government can do this to one native-born citizen [the son] they can do it to you.
Once about 20 years ago, when I was coming back across the Tijuana border crossing with a bunch of Koreans - some naturilized, some green-card holders, after helping them build a Korean Presbyterian Church south of TJ, I was sitting in the back of the van when the call went out for everyone to hand their US Passports or green cards forward to the driver.
When we got to the crossing the driver handed all the documents to the border patrol officer.
It was dark, and the border patrol officer asked me from the front of the van why I had only a driver's licence, and not a passport. Well, this was about my tenth time crossing there. I had NEVER been told that my driver's license was inadequate before, and there was no law requiring me to have one. I was obviously native born.
I flippantly remarked that my driver's license was good enough because I was white. Flippant, but true. The only reason I was being questioned was because I was with a bunch of Koreans.
That was then. The rules have changed. Being a native born white boy is not going to give me a free pass any more. I am not too concerned about the government playing hardball with illegal aliens or vistors, or even green card citizens. But when the government starts barring citizens because they refused to submit to FBI questioning overseas, I am ready to draw the line.
Last time I looked, this site was called "Free Republic", not "Sheep Republic", and not "Slave Republic."
Because they can. If you let them. That's the way the real world works.
"As for the Resident Alien adult, he's toast and we can refuse his entry and strip his residency with ease."
I did not see a resident alien. I saw a naturalized citizen. There are ways to revoke citizenship of a naturalized citizen, but not as easy as yanking permanent residence privilege.
Like I said, it was from the previous thread.
"supporting terrorists by attending a Pakistani training camp"
Wouldn't that be more BEING a terrorist?
"Since I don't know anyone who refuses to answer questions when returning from overseas, I'm not sure what right they have to re-enter (in this case)."
Uh, these guys are being forced to answer questions by the FBI, not the INS. I'll bet you also don't know anyone who was told to submit to interrogation from the FBI when returning from overseas. I doubt that the INS has blanket authority to question CITIZEN returnees on every subject under the sun, on pain of being refused admission if they do not answer.
And they are being forced to do it in a country where their rights are less than if they were in the United States - we know that the Fourth Amendment is not effective, possibly the Fifth is also not effective? Why doesn't the FBI wait to readmit them to the United States and then question them?
For one thing, I do not spend my vacations at a terrorist training camp in Pakistan.
For another thing, my son WAS held up at the border for several hours because his (non-U.S.-national) wife's visa was expired.
Eventually they were allowed into the country because they have no terrorist connections.
That's the whole point. They can come here, but not directly on an airplane. But their behavior certainly makes me wish they'd stay in some other country (the further, the better).
9-11 happened.....all bets are off......go cry elsewhere....
"9-11 happened.....all bets are off......go cry elsewhere...."
Be easy (somewhat) on the guy. His slippery slope fear is well justified in many areas. He's still on our side, so it's best to bring these guys around. I get the "deal with it" response when I complain about our Texas Governor Rick Perry giving foreign companies effective control over our highway system (I'm told that I'm a socialist for not supporting it).
So I'm a bit sensitive here.
Why would they pick on me?
If an FBI guy wanted to interrogate you, say, just for practice, he could have you committing a Federal Offense - lying to an FBI agent -- in about five minutes. It is the simplest thing in the world. It would make absolutely no different who you were, or what you were, or how you had lived your life.
First he would make you nervous, if you were not already nervous. Then he would make you confused, then when you made a verbal slip, he would work you over on it, till you answered SOME question two different ways. Or he would go back and question you on some obscure point you made earlier, hoping you would answer it somewhat differently. Obviously, one of the ways would have to be false. Presto - you've lied to a Federal Officer, and it's off to jail you go.
Take, for example, your statement ""I do not spend my vacations at a terrorist training camp in Pakistan"
He might ask so, the training camp was in Afghanistan, then? Or are you saying you were not on "vacation". How DID you get the time to attend that terrorist camp, then? See, he could take that statement and show how it's consistent with an admission that you are a terrorist. Pretty nasty, huh? Not the least bit sporting. That's why the FBI wants to make sure you talk without a lawyer present. Because you will wind up admitting whatever words they want to put in your mouth.
I, too, have been held up at the border, because my wife [not yet a permanent resident or citizen at that point] needed to have her fully valid and regularly issued "advance parole" document further processed, which is normal procedure, but I was not aware that the further processing would be necessary. The processing took about 20 minutes, which was enough to cause us to miss our connection. Unlike your son and his wife, our papers were completely in order, but we were held up anyway.
This occurred in Toronto, which is where you clear immigration on flights coming in from Canada, and caused us to miss our connection, and have to spend the night in Toronto. I was kind of steamed, which made my interchange with the immigration official a bit testy at first, particulary when I started writing down names, because I did not know what other suprises might be in store for us, and I wanted a record of what happened.
At the end of the interview, when our paperwork was signed off, and I had calmed down, the officer asked me if I had any complaints. He asked this question three times, in three different ways. The reason, of course, is that we were being videotaped and audiotaped, and he was covering his posterior in case I complained later.
Lodi is a known hotbed of Islamic jihad advocates. You think they should just be let in? Amazing.
"sending them home"
Uh, what the government is doing is PREVENTING them from coming home. They are citizens. The United States is their home. Unless they have done something to lose their citizenship, which difficult, albeit not impossible, to do. But that requires some due process.
Now, if as some suggest, they can fly to Canada, and come in by land, it's fine with me if the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the American Legion, Captain Jack, Billy, and the 101st Field Artillery Band are waiting to receive them, and have a chat about what they've been up to.
That sounds reasonable, and replace "send them home" with "send them back". I'm just somewhat worked up about this.
Hey now. A Pakistani training camp is kinda like a dude ranch for these people. Just 'cause you went to a dude ranch doesn't make you a cowboy. (/dripping sarcasm)
As I live and breathe!!!! You mean we're actually doing something right for a change???? Pinch me.
REAL Americans would not make trips to that part of the world, I don't care what the reason is!
Oh get off your high horse! It's about time the borders were as tight here as they have ALWAYS been in other countries. I had to HAND OVER my passport in Germany, years ago, and had no idea where they were taking it, or if I'd ever get it back. They don't mess around in other countries and it's time we stopped being such dim bulbs.
"In America they are the dhimmis and should be made aware of it!"
Upon returning to the US last April a cousin/nephew of these two men admitted attending a jihadist camp while in Pakistan for the last nine years. The uncle/brother of these two was just convicted for having lied to the FBI about financing his sons activities at the camp.
The maternal grandfather, Qari Saeed ur Rehman, founded the Jamia Islamia Madrassa in 1962 (and still runs it), is a leader in the Jamiat Ulema Islam Party (Assembly of Islamic Clergy). No that is not a US political party that is a Pakistani political party run by the Muslim clergy. Ideologically, JUI party is regarded as uncompromisingly rigid and insisting on the strict enforcement of traditional Islamic law. They established the largest number of madrasahs in Pakistan and are associated with the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
We don't and it's very unlikely the FBI has that authority either.
What's the FBI going to do, if he arrives and refuses to speak with them? They can't deport him and neither can CBP.
Unless the FBI has enough to arrest the guy, there is not much they can do.
Our government could not send the US citizen to Hong Kong, or any place else for that matter, even if they wanted too.
LOL, sorry, that was not the case. We don't video record nor do we audiotape our interviews.
Also, you we not held up, only your wife was, you could have left at any time.
"LOL, sorry, that was not the case. We don't video record nor do we audiotape our interviews.
Also, you we not held up, only your wife was, you could have left at any time."
Well, I stand corrected. It certainly seemed like the inspector [not front line, we were in a private room] was speaking for an audience other than my wife and I, who were the only others in the room.
As for me being free to leave at any time, and leave my wife behind, I think what you mean was that I was under no LEGAL compulsion to remain. However, if I had left that would have resulted in a whole lot bigger problem than cooling my heels in Toronto for a night!
"Why would they pick on me?"
What part of "because they can" do you not understand?
Bureacracies that are given power tend to exercise it. Bureacracies that are given unrestrained power tend to exercise it without restraint. That's how the world works.
He's on the "no fly" list. He was barred from a flight to the US in Hong Kong. If he can make it to Canada or Mexico somehow, he's deal with his problems when he crosses the border.
As a matter of curiosity, are you opposed to the "no fly" list across the board, of simply Americans being listed?
"As a matter of curiosity, are you opposed to the "no fly" list across the board, of simply Americans being listed?"
Actually, I was not referring to the "no fly" provision, but the "no entry" provision.
The "no fly" criteria do seem rather mysterious, and mistakes have been made in identifying people whose names appear on it, as being someone else, but in principal I do not have a big problem with it as it applies to Americans or anyone else.
Some of the posters here have implied that the "barring" of entry to these two citizens is purely a result of their inability to board an aircraft to fly home. However, that is not what the article says. The article quotes Federal officials as saying that the two "will not be let back into the country" unless they answer questions. That is different from saying they will not be permitted to travel here by air. The "no fly" rule appears to be an ADDITIONAL impediment. Those who say that the article has the matter wrong have not stated the source of their purported superior knowledge of the matter. I have read the other thread on this topic, all 203 posts, and there was nothing there supporting this view.
Also, while I have heard of lots of people turned away from flights because they were on the "no fly" list, I have never heard of any who were offered the chance to board a later flight if they would only submit to questioning from the FBI. The cases I have heard they have just been turned down flat, no explanation, no reconsideration. So it is possible that even if these two American Citizens do answer the FBI's questions to their satisfaction, they STILL might not be allowed to come back by air.
Not my interpritation, my impression from this and other articles is that this is a "no fly" issue, being recharacterized by posters and the media as "no entry". I doubt they have any basis to bar the US citizen based on an interview. Clearly they can immediately detain him if he makes it here.
I've heard of "no fly" horror stories, a few fixed quickly, Ted Kennedy comes to mind, but most causing missed flights and delays. I've only heard of misidentifications thought, I suspect it's tough to get off the list if you're suspected of terror connections. The only one who comes to mind is Cat Stevens, and he threatened but didn't bother with an appeal. I don't know that he was on the "no fly" list either, he may simply have been barred from entry.