Clarissa writes:
So I’m filling out a permanent residency questionnaire, and after the expected questions of whether I plan to practice polygamy or engage in acts of terrorism I encounter the following question:
“Have you EVER been a member of, or in any way affiliated with, the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party?”
That sounds kind of weird.
I can’t say this is an issue that matters a lot to me, but this does seem like a clear-as-glass case of viewpoint discrimination.
I agree. I’ll bet you (with no research on my part) that it was put in during the red scare and stays there because
#of ppl who hate communism>>number of people who care about removing it>>number of people who will spend the political capital to stand up for the rights communists to become US citizens.
Ironically, the State Department denied Paul Robeson a passport, because he was an admitted (hell, a proud) socialist and critic of racism in the U.S. So foreign-born Commies can’t come in and native-born Commies can’t leave. (Yes, I exaggerate….)
The Supreme Court in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), struck down the State Dept. policy forbidding the issuance of passports to American communists. But at the same time, the SCOTUS has also been pretty consistent in saying that viewpoint discrimination is permissible in decided who to admit to the country, or in granting citizenship.
This is ridiculous – look at the way the question is phrased – no one with even the slightest ounce of intelligence would ever answer yes.
So not only does the question discriminate, it’s stupid. Real communists aren’t going to answer yes to such a question, when it is phrased in such an obviously hostile way.
It also seems like an easy question to honestly answer ‘no’ to. “The Communist Party” clearly refers to a specific party, but it’s not clear which one – CPUSA? It doesn’t name it properly. If you don’t belong to a party called “the Communist Party”, then it’s asking if you belong to “any other totalitarian party”, and since most political parties don’t identify as “totalitarian”, you’re fine.
I dunno. If there’s a penalty clause for lying (such as if the declaration is covered by perjury law) and there’s a paper trail they can access then a false declaration could cost you.
…I’m genuinely stunned that this is news to most American people. I mean, it’s right there, so I figured you guys knew? It’s so ridiculous that it troubles me less than one of its neighbouring questions – the one that bars entry to sex workers. Viewpoint discrimination against Communists is wrong, but I would venture that discrimination against sex workers is both more active and more dangerous to the safety of its targets.
I always assumed that the Communist question was snuck in next to a much more reasonable question, namely the one that asks if you were a member of the Nazi Party in Germany in the 30s-40s. (I recall a long-term permanent resident being deported a few years ago because it was discovered that she’d lied about this when she’d first migrated to the USA decades ago.)
james – you’re right, in that the USA does deport people who are proven to have lied about past Naziism. On the other hand, if you make an admission about it then it might be hard to get let in in the first place, so you don’t lose anything by lying.
Are people genuinely suggesting that we as a country can’t (or even shouldn’t) decide to refuse entry to Commies or Nazis coming in from the outside?
Give us your tired. Your Nazis your Commies…
formerlyLarry ,
Speaking for myself only: yes. Not all Communists are violent totalitarians (i.e. Stalinists, which is the correct term for those who most people have in mind when they think of Communists).
By the standards of this law, though, a political party that didn’t advocate violence but simply believed that Marx’s predictions were going to come true* would be lumped in with true totalitarian-minded people . Do you agree with that, formerlyLarry?
* For instance, a party that argues “given that the classless society is inevitable, let’s take that into account in our public policies”. Oh noes! How dangerous!
Ben,
I wouldn’t doubt that there were many nice, friendly Nazis also. Or, if you really got to know him, Pol Pot might have been just a well meaning, swell guy. Its just a same about those 2 million deaths, and untold suffering.
But whether individually there are some nice, well meaning Commies or Nazis is beside the point. Those ideologies have lead to enough death, destruction, and human misery we don’t need to accept any more than are already here.
Larry, as I commented over at The Alas Debate Annex, if we’re going to start banning ideologies based on how much suffering they’ve caused and are likely to cause, anti-regulation free market zealots will be the next up. After all, it was hardly communists who fucked up our economy so badly over the past few years. So yeah, let’s start deporting free-marketers!
Or I guess we could generally endorse freedom of speech for everyone, and judge people on their actions. I know it’s a wacky idea, but I still believe in it.
—Myca
Myca,
I agree with the second statement, but also therefore with the first one, there ;)
No one is suggesting that we tell foreigners what they can and cannot say while applying for a Visa. Guarantied entry into this country isn’t a human right. We get to decide who we let in. No communicable diseases, have the means to support yourself, can’t be a Commie, Nazi, terrorist, criminal, etc. etc. all seem like reasonable restrictions to me.
Also, comparing an economy (with some bad acting Americans) that has occasional ups, downs, and bubbles, booms, depressions, etc. to ideologies that, by some estimates, filled 100 million body bags last century seems way off the mark.
“Why don’t people make the same objection to anti-Nazi policies?” suggests an ignorance of the history of how “Are you now and have you ever been?” has been used in this country. “Nazi” refers to a specific political organization; “Communist” is a label that, yes, does apply to governments that have exterminated many millions; but in the US, it’s been used to refer to any opponent of General Franco or supporter of racial integration or scholar who taught Marx or indeed adherent of the New Deal. Note too that the “have you ever been” excludes former Communists, many of whom are conservatives.
The addition of “totalitarian party” is interesting, because it suggests that perhaps the regimes who murdered millions in the name of anticommunism don’t get a free pass. But we were told in the eighties that Pinochet, Marcos, Duvalier, Botha, Rios Montt, Somoza, Pahlavi, and their ilk were not totalitarians, just “authoritarians.”