Perhaps I should have put a smilie on this one for the sarcasm-impaired. 
Oh, I agree.
But of course, the argument could be made that there are legitimate reasons why the U.S. should require journalists to apply for visas – there are all kinds of reasons why people can be ineligible to receive visas, besides the nature of their planned activities in the U.S. Common ones are prior criminal convictions, infection with a disease of public health significance (most commonly HIV or TB), and prior visa violations.
Relevant section of the Immigration & Nationality Act:
“INA: ACT 212 - GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILLITY”
Again, what’s the big deal in having a journalist apply for a visa first, as a member of any other profession, including a diplomat, would have to do?
My bad. I should’ve read Cardenal’s bio before posting.
You know very well what the big deal is. It creates the appearance – and I am sure it is rather more than an appearance – that our government is trying to screen out foriegn reporters who might be inclined to criticize or embarrass it.
I do believe it could be a big deal, but I have yet to see an instance in which it appears that the U.S. refused admission to a journalist on ideological grounds. If and when that happens, I will indeed be pissed off, believe me. But so far I’ve only heard of cases in which journalists were refused admission because they didn’t bother to apply for visas.
I’d be interested to know if the other countries involved in the visa waiver scheme make the same requirements.
Do you know if US journalists going to NZ, UK or France are required to get a visa?
Eva, I can’t believe you’re standing up for that rule, considering all the pain and suffering you’ve seen people go through with our immigration laws. It’s a joke.
So, if a journalists from a waiver country needs to get on the plane right away to cover a story–tough luck?
Also, I don’t get the difference between “a business trip” and “productive employment.” If a professional painter were to come to the US to paint and wrote “painter” or “artists” down on the form, would s/he be booted because, in theory, he might paint something while here and sell it later?
I doubt it. This sounds like a special hell for journalists. If this country had any shame, which it more and more does not seem to have, it would nix this fascist rule NOW.
Looks like France does require journalists on assignment to have a visa:
http://www.info-france-usa.org/visitingfrance/usvisas.asp
I can’t make head or tail of the Australian Embassy website – they use a lot of unfamiliar terminology, and I don’t see anything that specifically refers to journalists.
The U.K.: I don’t see any information re: whether a journalist on assignment would be considered a business visitor, in which case he/she would not need a visa for a short stay, or a short-term employee, in which case he/she would need a visa. But their restrictions look very similar to those in the U.S., and I’d guess they would also consider engaging in journalism to be employment, and therefore require a visa:
Aeschines, I do believe the law requiring journalists to apply for visas has the potential to be abused. However, I have yet to see what I consider to be an abuse of the law for political reasons, and I believe there are also legitimate reasons to apply the work visa laws to journalists in the same manner that they are applied to all other categories of people coming here to work, including diplomats. I see this as a legitimate balancing of interests.
If you are a journalist who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, and you believe you might need to cover stories in the U.S., nothing prevents you from applying in advance for a journalist visa; there’s no need to wait until a story breaks. And I’ve also seen consular officials move mountains to expedite visas for people in legitimate need.
Here’s an interesting analysis of the “zero tolerance” policy towards people like Ramadan and Cat Stevens…
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI28Aa01.html
Seen this way, it’s not necessarily shooting oneself in the foot at all. It’s reminiscent of the communist Chinese ‘united front’ tactics - forcing people to choose between sides.
Pipes is the bane of virtually every international relations or foreign policy professor in the nation; he’s even blacklisted Jewish professors who weren’t totally supportive of Israel’s Palestine policy.
Here are a few quotes from the last presentation he did at my college (the first two are off-the-cuff remarks given in response to questions at the end)-
“American Muslims are either for the nation’s current policy in the Middle East, or are enemies of the state,”
“I believe ‘War on Terror’ is an apt name for this conflict because Al Quaeda, just like HAMAS, possesses the weapons to fight the United States on equal footing”
“The Palestinians are a miserable people… and they deserve to be”
Pipes represents the extreme anti-Islamic element of the current administration and his writing should be treated with appropriate caution.
I agree with Eva Luna. The potential for abuse notwithstanding, this law is really no big deal. People entering a country in their capacity as journalists aren’t entering the country as tourists, and there’s no logical reason they should be entering on tourist visas.
Ireland has a similar requirement, and a quick Google search shows that Britain, Japan and Brazil do too.
– ruadh, ex-US Immigration Paralegal, current Irish Parliamentary Secretary dealing with a lot of immigration matters for constituents