The troublemaker option

Five Minutes for IsraelNOT WELCOME IN ISRAEL

14 April 2012

The legal basis for keeping the Flytilla out

Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone

Tomorrow is the big day. Millions, hundreds of thousands, maybe hundreds but probably tens of Israel haters will try to make a statement by disrupting Ben Gurion Airport to publicise an issue the media has totally ignored has covered until all reasonable people are saying, not again. Israel will do her best to keep them out, preferably by seeing they won’t leave their ports of embarkation.

As previously, they will claim that Israel has a legal, democratic and moral obligation to allow them in. This is a yet another sign of Israel’s uniqueness. No one else will let them in, either. Every other Western state reserves the right to exclude those who enter the country to cause it damage. I call it the troublemaker option. (My comments).

Uncle SamUncle Sam doesn’t need you

America asserts her right to refuse entry in detail. United States Code 8 USC § 1182 – Inadmissable Aliens They are not talking about My Favourite Martian or Alf.
Does this sound like the Flytilla ratbags? (My comments in green).

(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:

(3) Security and related grounds

(A) In general

Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in—

(i) any activity

(ii) any other unlawful activity, or (that surely includes causing damage by closing down Ben Gurion Airport for their photo opportunity)

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,

is inadmissible (Palestine from the river to the sea. BTW is there any lawful means to advocate these things?)

(B) Terrorist activities

(i) In general Any alien who—

(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;

(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));

(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;

(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—

(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or (The USA and other countries define Hamas as a terrorist group even if these fools deny it).

(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity (that covers ISM and most anyone who thinks blowing-up a bus is legitimate resistance);

(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);

(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;

(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D (c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or

(IX) is the spouse or child (I guess that means the family holiday to Ramallah is off) of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,

is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity. (Oops! Aren’t Fatah supposed to be the moderates?)

 Queen VictoriaHer Majesty is not amused

Not only is Her Majesty not amused but she asserts her right to exclude almost anybody for whatever reason she feels is right. This is all covered in The Immigration Rules

Part 9 – General grounds for the refusal of entry clearance, leave to enter or variation of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom

Refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom
320. In addition to the grounds of refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter set out in Parts 2-8 of these Rules, and subject to paragraph 321 below, the following grounds for the refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter apply:

Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom is to be refused

(1) the fact that entry is being sought for a purpose not covered by these Rules; (I somehow doubt joining a demonstration whose major purpose is disputing the Government’s right to make these rules would be covered).

(6) where the Secretary of State has personally directed that the exclusion of a person from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good; (That should cover it. Troublemakers can holiday elsewhere!)

(7A) where false representations have been made or false documents or information have been submitted (whether or not material to the application, and whether or not to the applicant’s knowledge), or material facts have not been disclosed, in relation to the application or in order to obtain documents from the Secretary of State or a third party required in support of the application. (ISM instructs its people to lie about their intentions, at the border. A certain percentage of the ‘travelers’ will have been caught out in their lies before or entered by false representations)†.

(7B) subject to paragraph 320(7C), where the applicant has previously breached the UK’s immigration laws by:

(a) Overstaying;

(b) breaching a condition attached to his leave;

(c) being an Illegal Entrant (covers anyone who attempted to enter Gaza with one of the ‘flotillas’.);

(d) using Deception in an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or remain (whether successful or not);

unless the applicant:

(i) Overstayed for 28 days or less and left the UK voluntarily, not at the expense (directly or indirectly) of the Secretary of State (In other words deported once excluded twice);

Green beer

Begorrah!

Since so many (or at least so many of the loudest) will come from Ireland I thought I’d like to see what the Republic of Ireland thought about keeping the riff-raff out. Unfortunately I couldn’t find what they thought about letting them back in to the Emerald Isle. When the Irish decide to refuse someone entry they red-flag him or her. This means he/she would be arrested and immediately deported if that person turned up at an Irish port of entry. Shouldn’t that be green-flagged?

When dealing with Ireland we have to remember that Ireland’s situation is complicated by relations with the UK and the EU. It seems entry to Ireland is very much a matter of the Immigration Officer’s discretion. Remember to smile. The government and the police will also have a say – a big say.

Does a visa guarantee entry to Ireland on arrival? Not really.

The granting of a visa is in effect only a form of pre-clearance. A visa only permits you to travel to the State and seek entry during the validity period of the visa. It does not grant permission to enter or reside in the State; this permission is given by the Immigration Officer who has the authority to grant or deny such admission. (So don’t expect any different when you reach customs at Ben Gurion).
An Immigration Officer is entitled to question any person on arrival. If they are not satisfied with the bona-fides of any person, their documents, or their reasons for wishing to enter the State, they have the right to deny entry to any such person, despite the fact they hold a valid visa. (No automatic right of entry so don’t whine about International law).
You are advised to carry supporting documentation related to the purpose of your journey in your hand luggage, for presentation to the Immigration Officer at the port of entry. (I strongly suggest you don’t carry your honorary citizen of Palestine passport, no matter how much you see Israel as an illegal settler state with no right to exist. It only gives Israel another reason to deport you).

IMMIGRATION ACT 1999

4.—(1) The Minister may, if he or she considers it necessary in the interest of national security or public policy, by order (referred to in this Act as an “exclusion order”) exclude any non-national specified in the order from the State.

(2) A person who contravenes a provision of an exclusion order shall be guilty of an offence.

Ben GurionShalom Israel

If you have come with the Flytilla you must have realised that Israel doesn’t want to let you in but what if you have an actual right to enter as a Palestinian? The answer seems to be certainly but not through Ben Gurion. It would be funny if Israel told those with those oh-so-valuable Palestinian Passports they can come in but only across the Allenby Bridge. Coming in from Jordan rather spoils the photo-op, doesn’t it?

Individuals who hold a Palestinian Authority ID, as well as persons judged by Israeli authorities to have claim to a Palestinian Authority ID by virtue of ancestry, will be considered subject to Israeli law and to regulations that Israel applies to residents of the West Bank and Gaza, regardless of whether they also hold U.S. citizenship (or any other state). In most cases, such individuals will be required by Israeli authorities to enter the West Bank via the Allenby Bridge (also known as King Hussein Bridge) border crossing with Jordan, rather than entering Israel via Ben Gurion International Airport unless they obtain a transit permit for that purpose in advance (given that the whole purpose of the Flytilla is to defy Israeli regulations and even the right to make regulations I can’t see too many taking advantage of this simple work-around). Even if they have entered Israel via Ben Gurion Airport, they may be required to depart via the Allenby Bridge (bummer). Upon arrival at any of the Ports of Entry, such persons may wish to consider asking Israeli immigration authorities from where they will be required to depart. U.S. Passport Service Guide


†Conscious violation of Israeli law: PA ISM activists “often acted consciously and according to the briefing earlier, contrary to Israeli law. Through attempts to outwit the authorities when they arrived in Israel, to enter areas declared a closed military zone and systematic disruption of the operational activities of soldiers. ISM’s internal documents demonstrate that activists dispatched to the Territories “have received security briefing, during their training workshops, regarding methods for tricking the Israeli authorities (for example, by false cover stories such as posing as tourists; changing passport details and denying any connection to ISM). Meir Amit Terrorist Information Center, December 7, 2010 (Hebrew)

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

About David Guy

B.A./B.C.A. (Communication and Media Arts) University of Wollongong, AUSTRALIA M.A. in Government (Diplomacy and Conflict Studies) Inter Disciplinary Center, Herzliya, ISRAEL Twitter @5MFI
This entry was posted in Lawyers are Advocates #2 and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The troublemaker option

  1. Jack Kessler says:

    If they are really really sure they have a right under international law to enter the Zionist entity, the obviously should take it up with the World Court in the Hague, no? And the World Court should not hesitate to embarrass itself by showing its bigotry openly by finding in their favor.

  2. David Guy says:

    Actually I don’t think the International Court of Justice (World Court) could take their case. As much as the Floptilla oganisers might like to pretend, they are neither a state or an organ of the United Nations. They have no standing.

    Actually, the one court that might take their case seriously is Israel’s Supreme Court. Apparently the government has been instructed to make criteria for entrance public and transparent and hasn’t done so.

Comments are closed.