| |
|
Advocacy and Letters -
Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
|
|
Written by Coalition
|
|
Monday, 03 August 2009 |
|
COALITION FOR PATIENT PRIVACY August 3, 2009 Dr. David Blumenthal
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Ave, SW
Suite 729D
Washington, DC 20201 Re: Comments to the HIT Policy Committee on the July 16, 2009 meeting Dear Dr. Blumenthal and Members of the Committee: The Coalition for Patient Privacy (the Coalition) is the leading voice of consumer organizations working to protect patient privacy and encourage adoption of Health IT, representing millions of Americans. We are a diverse, multi-partisan and collaborative group united by the effort to prevent discrimination and preserve the ethical basis of the health care system. The Coalition’s three central tenets for Health IT are Accountability, Control of Personal Information and Transparency, "A.C.T. for Privacy". The Coalition worked tirelessly in 2008/2009 to lead the grassroots effort to ensure historic privacy protections were included along with the $19 billion federal investment in Health IT as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the last HIT Policy Committee (the Committee) meeting held July 16, 2009. We comment today to raise concerns regarding the public’s lack of opportunities to provide meaningful feedback to this body, the need to protect and enable patient control over protected health information at the beginning of this process, and the approved "meaningful use" matrix. Public Comment & Participation: We appreciate the Committee’s attempts to invite public comment on these critical matters. We also appreciate the incredibly restrictive timeframes in place. Nevertheless, we urge the Committee to allow additional time and opportunity to hear and incorporate the public perspective. It is incredibly complicated and difficult for the public to participate in meaningful ways in this important policy making process. The Committee has access to a tremendous wealth of expertise from the health care and information technology industries. At the end of the day, it is the patient that opts to share his/her personal information with a provider, and it is the patient that must be assured electronic health record systems can be trusted. In the "Overview of Public Comments" presentation summarizing the 792 comments received on "Meaningful Use" criteria there was no mention of any concerns or proposals offered by any consumer or health privacy advocacy organizations. This is a striking omission from the presentation on the comments. While we will certainly do our part to ensure you hear from a large constituency, the Committee’s policies will fall short of public expectations if it does not discuss any public comments from patients. At times, the interests of the health care, HIT, research, insurance, pharmaceutical and data mining industries are in direct conflict with Americans’ longstanding legal and ethical rights to control personal health information. Without additional consumer and patient engagement, expecting this process to protect consumers is like expecting foxes to design hencoops that chickens will trust. Similar to the auto, banking, and securities industries, the HIT, pharmaceutical, insurance, and healthcare industries will never add consumer protections willingly. They will always claim consumers’ privacy rights are impossible, too complex, too expensive, or unnecessary to protect. However, we believe their claims are spurious and that the technical capacity and federal policy precedents are available now to add the essential consumer privacy protections to the "meaningful use" criteria and quality matrices. Recommendations: 1) When matrices and recommendations are presented to the Committee as a whole, such information must be made available to the public a minimum of two (2) days prior. Alternatively, time must be allotted to receive public comment BEFORE the Committee approves such recommendations, so that the Committee could better understand and aggressively debate consumers’ proposals. We understand formal requests for public comment published in the Federal Register are part of the formal rulemaking process that will take place after the Committee makes final recommendations. Nevertheless, we believe that our proposals and concerns should be openly addressed and debated during the deliberative stage of the Committee’s work. Even an informal solicitation of public comments prior to decision making would greatly improve this process. 2) We urge you to work directly with our broad–based Coalition and any other consumer health privacy advocacy organizations accountable to the public.1 Greater Attention to Protecting and Enabling Privacy Generally speaking, the discussions from this Committee are driven from an industry (health care and information technology) point of view primarily. Providers’ points of view are secondary in the process, and patients seem to fall into the mix last – the caboose -- if at all. We strongly urge a complete reversal of these perspectives. First, the patient’s needs and rights must guide policy. Second, these needs and rights must be addressed on the front end, not the back. The Coalition hears from our far-reaching constituencies that having control over who can access and use their most personal information, or privacy, is their paramount concern. We cannot reach the ultimate vision for HIT, nor meet the key goals to improve quality, safety and efficiency, engage patients and families, improve coordination, improve public health and reduce disparities, and ensure privacy and security protections, if we begin with what is easy rather than what is crucial. While ensuring privacy may be challenging, it is workable and more importantly, essential. First, while we certainly appreciate the need for gradual implementation, the key technology features needed to ensure public trust, items such as segmentation, consent management and audit trails need to be addressed now. Likewise, policy matters such as how Americans can control their information and how they can opt-out of systems are not a matter that can or should be dealt with later. Clearly Committee member Dr. Sweeney heard this concern, as did other members. Second, the issue of privacy is raised countless times during the Committee’s meetings; but we have yet to see any comprehensive or cross‐cutting attention given to privacy in the Committee’s recommendations. The few privacy measures will not be addressed until 2015. Further, the Committee does not have an agreed upon definition of privacy. "Privacy" is an easily used term, often mixed with "security" or "confidentiality" causing confusion and making it impossible to measure progress. Privacy is essential for quality healthcare; it should be a quality metric measured as part of the "meaningful use" criteria. Finally, we note that quality healthcare depends on privacy2. In the slide used for the Meaningful Use Workgroup Presentation entitled, "Bending the Curve Towards Transformed Health", the starting point for the arrow in the slide is "data capture and sharing." Again, having TRUST is essential before patients are willing to give providers any data to capture. Trust and privacy (and security) need to be the starting point; we suggest an alternative approach: Accurate and complete information cannot be obtained by force. We know from the California HealthCare Foundation’s National Consumer Health Privacy Survey (2005) that 12.5% of the population avoids their regular doctor, asks doctors to alter diagnoses, pays privately for a test, or avoids tests altogether due to privacy concerns. If we do not restore patient control over PHI, we can expect electronic health data to have error and omission rates of 12.5 % or more. The breakthroughs and benefits possible with technology‐enhanced research will never be reached with such a high rate of errors and omissions. The lack of privacy drives patients away from doctors. We know from HHS’ findings that every year 600,000 people refuse early diagnosis and treatment for cancer and 2,000,000 avoid treatment for mental illness because of fears their treatment will not be private3. The lack of privacy causes death, suffering, and, most importantly, bad outcomes. This is happening right now and will only get worse as we migrate to electronic health records. Given that 68% of the public have little confidence that electronic health records will remain confidential, the Committee needs to act immediately to ensure the public’s fears are alleviated by policies and standards that ensure EHRs can be trusted.4 Recommendations: 1) The Committee should adopt a definition of privacy. We urge adoption of the NCVHS definition of health information privacy: "individual’s right to control the acquisition, uses, or disclosures of his or her identifiable health data." 2) Ensure that the patient perspective is prominently represented and, in fact, heard in each of the three workgroups. The Coalition is happy to assist the Committee with feedback for each workgroup as recommendations are developed to ensure privacy is addressed. 3) Reject any recommendations that call for collecting all "comprehensive data available" and to "record all available data" without first laying the groundwork for privacy and ensuring consumer control and informed consent. Approved "Meaningful Use" Matrix In addition to our previous comments about meaningful use, we note that we were encouraged to see among the 2011 objectives for Privacy and Security in the Meaningful Use Matrix (7.10.09) compliance with the Nationwide Privacy and Security Framework for Electronic Exchange of Individually Identifiable Health Information (Framework). This Framework includes the strong privacy principle that "Individuals should be provided a reasonable opportunity and capability to make informed decisions about the collection, use, and disclosure of their individually identifiable health information." Compliance with the Framework is stated as a 2011 objective. Yet there does not appear to be any actual requirement for this key privacy policy, nor any way to verify compliance. We applaud many of the principles and policies set forth in the Framework but note that they are not all being addressed as part of the "meaningful use" matrix. The key critical function needed in every EHR to enable "meaningful use" of EHR data is the ability of patients to control the uses and disclosures of all protected health information (PHI). We recommended previously that the Committee adopt existing open source technology that enables detailed control over disclosures as a baseline model or floor for consent technologies. The open source technology we recommended has the added advantage of enabling robust segmentation, so adoption of the functions in this technology as a minimum standard for privacy and segmentation would allow these two critical consumer protections to be quickly implemented as requirements for "meaningful use" in EHRs. We believe that ultimately, certification of systems for "meaningful use" that do not require consumer control over data fail to meet public’s expectations. With regard to measures and objectives for the accounting of disclosures for treatment,payment and healthcare operations, we remind the Committee that ARRA requires no later than 2013 for EHRs purchased after January 1, 2009 audit trails be in place. For these "new" EHRs, an audit trail is required by 2011, and no later than 2013. As such, it is essential that the Committee develop the needed policies now. Acknowledging the time needed for implementation, we also urge the Committee to recommend policies that will guide the development of new privacy‐enhancing technologies. Early attention is needed for the successful implementation of segmentation and consent management features. If these protections are placed on the backburner, EHRs will be purchased and used over the next four years without those critical features and make retrofitting for privacy a burden. Recommendations: 1) Include compliance with the policies and principles in the Nationwide Privacy and Security Framework as a 2011 measure so that these principles are both required and verified. The Committee could delay some portions of this framework until 2013, but 2011 should be the goal. 2) Add minimum standards for basic consent management tools to the "meaningful use" criteria. We recommend that EHRs must include consent and segmentation capabilities at least as detailed and specific as those in the open source electronic consent controls developed by the NDIIC, as recommended in our previous comments. 3) Add consumer control over PHI in EHRs as a "meaningful use" quality measure, tracked and improved over time. 4) Include objectives for audit trails, segmentation and consent management in 2011 and 2013 as part of the meaningful use matrix. Even if these objectives are not required for federal funds (for segmentation and consent management), the steps towards 2015 implementation should be articulated as early as possible. Our Coalition is committed to working closely with you and the HIT Policy Committee to ensure patients and consumers are represented and that we achieve progress by protecting privacy. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, The Coalition for Patient Privacy American Association of People with Disabilities
American Civil Liberties Union
Center for Digital Democracy
Clinical Social Work Association
Consumer Action
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Just Health
Multiracial Activist
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Coalition for LGBT Health
National Coalition of Mental Health Professionals & Consumers
Patient Privacy Rights
Private Citizen
Tolven, Inc.
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation Footnotes 1 We note the language creating the HIT Policy Committee requires it to "serve as a forum for broad stakeholder input" and it "shall ensure an opportunity for the participation …of outside advisors, including individuals with expertise in the development of policies for the electronic exchange and use of health information, including in the areas of health information privacy and security. . . " 2 "The entire health delivery system is based upon the willingness of the individual to trust a health care practitioner sufficiently to disclose to the practitioner the most intimate details of his or her life." "An assurance of privacy of health information is necessary to secure effective, high quality health care." 65 Fed. Reg. at 82,467 3 65 Fed. Reg. at 82,779 and 82,777. 4 See the survey data from the Employee benefit Research Institute and Mathew Greenwald & Associates presented by the Privacy and Security Work Group to the HIT Standards Committee on July 21, 2009 For more information, please contact: Ashley Katz
Executive Director, Patient Privacy Rights
\n
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (512)732‐0033  Be first to comment this article |  Add as favourites (2) |  Quote this article on your site | Views: 4
|
|
|
Advocacy and Letters -
Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
|
|
Written by Coalition
|
|
Monday, 18 May 2009 |
|
May 18, 2009 Dr. Beth Noveck
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
725 17th Street Room 5228
Washington, DC 20502 Dear Dr. Noveck, On behalf of the undersigned organizations concerned with government transparency, we write to request you announce a formal process for public input on developing recommendations to make government transparent, collaborative, and participatory. Additionally, given President Obama’s determination to create "an unprecedented level of openness in Government," we ask you make publicly available comments received from agencies, agency employees, or the public related to the development of an Open Government Directive. As advocates for government openness, we are heartened by President Obama’s commitment to make the federal government transparent. We are especially pleased that on his first day in office, President Obama issued his "Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government." We are deeply concerned, however, that of the 120 days given to develop recommendations in President Obama’s "Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government," almost 90 percent of the allotted time has passed with no structured process for public input. We understand that the process for gathering public input on the Open Government Directive was delayed until President Obama named a new Chief Technology Officer (CTO). Now that Mr. Aneesh Chopra has been named to the position, we believe it is crucial that you announce a structured process as soon as possible. We also ask that you consider requesting the President to extend the deadline, to give the wider stakeholder community time to engage and allow further public participation. It has been reported the White House intends to disclose recommendations on the Open Government Directive to the public for comment using social media technologies. While we appreciate and support the administration’s innovative use of technological venues to increase participation, we urge you to also undertake a formal 60-day notice and comment process, as used during both the regulatory review and scientific integrity processes. The formal 60-day process using the Federal Register is the typical comment process; publishing the recommendation in the Federal Register will also increase participation among members of the public who are not comfortable with social media technologies. We understand some agency employees collaborated and shared ideas about specific issues regarding the Open Government Directive using the Office of Management and Budget’s MAX system. Agencies may also have provided formal input on the development of the Directive. In the interest of transparency and collaboration, we urge you to make the comments from agencies and agency employees public, along with any other suggestions you have received so far. We believe the release of these comments to the public would be helpful in understanding the positions held within and outside the government, and better identify problems and solutions in a collaborative fashion. We also note that the administration’s new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidance encourages such records to be affirmatively disclosed on a discretionary basis. Such action would demonstrate a commitment to the principles set forth on open government by the administration. We appreciate your attention to these issues, and we look forward to working with you on developing recommendations to make the federal government transparent, collaborative, and participatory. Representatives of our organizations would be happy to meet with you or your staff to discuss our requests in more detail. Sincerely, Patrice McDermott
OpenTheGovernment.org Gary Bass
OMB Watch David Swanson
After Downing Street Mary Alice Baish
American Association of Law Libraries Chris Finan
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression Caroline Fredrickson
American Civil Liberties Union Lynne Bradley
American Library Association Chip Pitts
Bill of Rights Defense Committee Terry Francke
Californians Aware Ari Schwartz
Center for Democracy and Technology Anne Weismann
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Michael Surrusco
Common Cause Bob Fertik
Democrats.com David Sobel
Electronic Frontier Foundation Marc Rotenberg
Electronic Privacy Information Center Judy Braiman
Empire State Consumer Project Martin E. Visnosky
Erie County Environmental Coalition John Richard
Essential Information Bob Cooper
Evergreen Public Affairs Tirso Moreno
Farmworker Association of Florida Suzanne A. Delaney
Feminists for Free Expression Mark P. Cohen
Government Accountability Project Rick Hind
Greenpeace John Chelen
Hampshire Research Institute J.H. Snider, MBA, Ph.D.
iSolon.org Nancy Tate
League of Women Voters of the United States Michael Ostrolenk
Liberty Coalition Mary Treacy
Minnesota Coalition on Government Information James Landrith
The Multiracial Activist Joan Bertin
National Coalition Against Censorship Charles Davis
National Freedom of Information Coalition Meredith Fuchs
National Security Archive Duane Parde
National Taxpayers Union Susan Maret
Progressive Librarians Guild Danielle Brian
Project on Government Oversight David Banisar
Privacy International Elizabeth O’Nan
Protect All Children's Environment Peter Suber
Public Knowledge Dave Aeikens
Society of Professional Journalists Doug Newcomb
Special Libraries Association Ellen Miller
Sunlight Foundation Tim Donaghy
Union of Concerned Scientists
Scientific Integrity Program Dane vonBreichenruchardt
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation Stephen Buckley
UStransparency.com Kathy Van Dame, Policy Coordinator
Wasatch Clean Air Coalition Toby Nixon
Washington Coalition for Open Government Bill Will
Washington Newspaper Publishers Association Ricci Levy
Woodhull Freedom Foundation Individual signatories, additional information for identification purposes only Eric Bender, Reference Librarian
LA Law Library Richard Doherty M.D., ret.
University of Rochester and Stanford Medical Schools J. William Leonard, Former Director,
Information Security Oversight Office
Leonardtown, MD Holly Gale
Law Librarians of Puget Sound Romola Georgia
Palo Alto, California Anne R. Grady
Natick, MA Dwight Hines, Ph.D.
IndyMedia Faye E. Jones, Director and Professor
The Florida State University,
College of Law Research Center Karen Lasnick, Manager of Library & Research Services
Bryan Cave LLP Cliff Li
CEO, CommerNet, Inc. John F. Necci, Law Library Director and Associate Professor of Law
Beasley School of Law at Temple University Naraya Stein
Haiku, Hawaii Virginia Swain
Institute for Global Leadership, a Service of Excelsis Lisa Thornton
Lisa Thornton Inc. Kiyul Uhm, Associate Professor Daegu University,
Director of the Freedom of Information Center John W. Whitehead, President
The Rutherford Institute Caitlin Wills-Toker, PhD
University System of Georgia Electronic Core Curriculum
Gainesville State College
Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (3) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 4 |
|
|
Advocacy and Letters -
Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
|
|
Written by Coalition
|
|
Thursday, 23 April 2009 |
|
An Open Letter Urging Immigration Reform for the Stepchildren of US Citizens
April 23, 2009 There are so many big things wrong with US immigration policy that it can be easy to overlook smaller injustices. But it is just wrong to deport the stepchild of a US citizen because they kept having birthdays during the often years-long wait for their legal immigration visa. No one intended for the law to be so mindless. Most Americans are surprised that our immigration laws so directly contradict our values, as well as common sense. There is no national interest in aging stepchildren out of their legal immigration status. The numbers of such cases are small compared to other immigration categories, but for each blended family who falls into this gap between our values and our immigration laws, the consequences can literally be the destruction of the family, ironically because they obeyed the law. Aging out of other family immigration categories were resolved by the Child Status Protection Act which President Bush signed into law in 2002. That the stepchildren of US citizens were not incorporated into the new law has been universally acknowledged to have been an oversight. So we the undersigned urge the US Congress to enact reform of the K-2 visa for the stepchildren of US citizens when the Reuniting Families Act is reintroduced. Sincerely, American Families United
Ellen Somekawa, Executive Director, Asian Americans United
Asian Law Caucus
Bonilla Community Services
Jim Babka, President, DownsizeDC.org
Alan Reuther, Legislative Director, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
Justice Through Music
The Latin American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Liberty Coalition
The Multiracial Activist
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
National Council of La Raza
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
Dane von Breichenruchardt, President, U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation
John & Carol Whitehead, Rutherford Institute
Velvet Revolution Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (5) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 5 |
|
|
Advocacy and Letters -
Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
|
|
Written by Coalition
|
|
Saturday, 18 April 2009 |
|
April 18, 2009 David Blumenthal, MD, MPP National Coordinator
Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201 Dear Dr. Blumenthal: As you begin to lead the nation toward broader adoption of health information technology (HIT) and greater protections for patients and consumers, the Coalition for Patient Privacy commends your commitment to public service and applauds your willingness to take on what many see as the greatest challenge facing America. It is a phenomenal undertaking and we are confident that working together we can achieve both progress and privacy. Our coalition represents a diverse, bi-partisan collection of organizations committed to patient privacy. Prior to the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), we called upon Congress to “A.C.T.” to ensure Accountability for access to health records, Control of personal information, and Transparency to protect medical consumers from abuse; and we appeal to you to do the same. It is vital that the public be adequately represented in the HIT and privacy policy making process. We urge you to ensure that the public’s concerns, confusion, fears and interests are front and center before the HIT Policy Committee, as Congress clearly intended in ARRA. If we fail to “really” hear the public and if we fail to hear patient advocates’ solutions, we will miss this golden opportunity for understanding and most importantly buy-in. We salute the individuals named to the HIT Policy Committee; they are all highly qualified individuals who will bring added value to the process. With this limited number of appointees, it is imperative for the Committee to reach out to many groups who are not represented but who have knowledge and expertise in consumers, privacy and HIT: our Coalition looks forward to working with the Committee in helping shape this important policy. To that end, we request a meeting with you to begin sharing our concerns and possible solutions and to discuss the methods of optimizing the approach for an open, transparent process. We note the language creating the HIT Policy Committee requires it to “serve as a forum for broad stakeholder input” and it “shall ensure an opportunity for the participation …of outside advisors, including individuals with expertise in the development of policies for the electronic exchange and use of health information, including in the areas of health information privacy and security. . . ” We look forward to being part of this forum and learning more about the formal process for obtaining information from additional experts. Tremendous progress has been made with the passage of additional consumer protections in the ARRA. While there is much work ahead, our Coalition is committed to working closely with you and the HIT Policy Committee to ensure patients and consumers are represented and that we achieve progress by protecting privacy. We look forward to meeting with you at the earliest possible time. Sincerely, The Coalition for Patient Privacy AIDS Action
Alliance for Patient Safety
Association of People with Disabilities American Civil Liberties Union American Psychoanalytic Association Citizens for Health Clinical Social Work Association Confederation of Independent Psychoanalytic Societies
Consumer Action
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Government Accountability Project
Just Health
The Liberty Coalition
The Multiracial Activist
National Association of Social Workers
Patient Privacy Rights
Private Citizen, Inc.
Tolven
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation Encl: 2009 Coalition for Patient Privacy Principles cc: The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius Secretary – Designate, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Charles E. Johnson Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Nancy - Ann Min DeParle Counselor to the President and Director of the White House Office of Health Reform The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives The Honorable John Boehner
Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate The Honorable Henry Waxman Chairman, House Energy & Commerce Committee The Honorable Charles B. Rangel Chairman, House Energy & Commerce Committee Robert Kolodner, MD National Coordinator For additional information please contact: Ashley Katz Executive Director Patient Privacy Rights (O) 512-732-0033 (C) 512-897-6390 \n
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it http://www.patientprivacyrights.org/ Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (17) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 4 |
|
|
Advocacy and Letters -
Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
|
|
Written by Coalition
|
|
Wednesday, 18 March 2009 |
March 18, 2009
Hon. Eric H. Holder Jr.
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520
Hon. Janet Napolitano
Secretary of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528
Dear Attorney General Holder and Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano:
Over the last eight years, the Departments of State and Homeland Security revived the practice of “ideological exclusion,” refusing visas to foreign scholars, writers, artists, and activists not on the basis of their actions but on the basis of their ideas, political views, and associations. As a result of this practice, dozens of prominent intellectuals were barred from assuming teaching posts at U.S. universities, fulfilling speaking engagements with U.S. audiences, and attending academic conferences. Many of those barred from the United States were vocal critics of U.S. foreign policy.
We are writing to urge you to end this practice. While the government plainly has an interest in excluding foreign nationals who present a threat to national security, no legitimate interest is served by the exclusion of foreign nationals on ideological grounds. To the contrary, ideological exclusion impoverishes academic and political debate inside the United States. It sends the message to the world that our country is more interested in silencing than engaging its critics. It undermines our ability to support political dissidents in other countries. And it deprives Americans of a right protected by the First Amendment. See Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972). No legitimate interest is served by the government’s use of the immigration laws as instruments of censorship.
In fact, ideological exclusion is a practice that history had discredited long before the Bush administration. During the Cold War, the United States used the ideological exclusion provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act to bar, among others, Colombian novelist Gabriel García Márquez, Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, Italian playwright Dario Fo, British novelist Doris Lessing, and Canadian writer and environmentalist Farley Mowat. Those exclusions came to be seen as an embarrassment to the country, and virtually no one proposes now that those exclusions served the national interest. History will judge the ideological exclusions of the last eight years in the same way. Such exclusions are ineffective as a matter of security policy and they are inconsistent with the ideals that make this country worth defending.
The undersigned organizations are eager to see the new administration commit itself to these ideals. Accordingly, we respectfully ask (1) that you evaluate applicants for admission to the United States on the basis of their actions rather than their political beliefs and associations; (2) that, as to foreign scholars, writers, artists, and activists who are deemed inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act, you exercise your discretion to waive inadmissibility except where articulable national security interests unrelated to the applicant’s political beliefs or associations make waiver inappropriate; and (3) that you immediately revisit the specific cases listed below:
- Iñaki Egaña. Mr. Egaña is a respected historian and writer from the Basque region of Spain. In March 2006, Mr. Egaña traveled to the United States to conduct research for a book about Basque author Mario Salegi, who was a target of McCarthyism during the 1950s. Upon disembarking the plane, however, Mr. Egaña and his children were interrogated, detained for 24 hours, and forced to return to Madrid. The government has provided no explanation for Mr. Egaña’s exclusion.
- Haluk Gerger. Professor Gerger is a Turkish sociologist and journalist. He was jailed by Turkey in the 1990s for his writing about Turkey’s Kurds. Twice during that time, in its 1994 and 1995 Country Reports on Human Rights, the U.S. State Department cited Professor Gerger’s treatment as an example of the misuse of antiterrorism legislation to stifle freedom of expression. In 1999, when Professor Gerger was on trial again for his writings, the U.S. issued Professor Gerger and his wife 10-year, multiple entry visas. In October 2002, however, when Professor Gerger and his wife arrived at Newark airport, border officials informed them that the State Department had cancelled their visas. The government has provided no explanation for Professor Gerger’s exclusion.
- Adam Habib. Professor Habib, a South African national, is a prominent human rights activist and public intellectual. Although he earned his PhD in the United States, when he attempted to visit the United States in October 2006 for professional meetings, he was interrogated for seven hours at the border and then told that his visa had been revoked. After U.S. organizations filed suit to challenge his exclusion, the government notified Professor Habib that he had been denied entry on terrorism-related grounds. It still has not has not informed him, however, of the specific legal or factual basis for its decision. The evidence strongly suggests that Professor Habib has been excluded not because of any connection to terrorism but because of his political activism.1
- Riyadh Lafta. Dr. Lafta, an Iraqi national, is Professor of Medicine at Baghdad’s Mustansiriyah University. In the fall of 2006, Dr. Lafta applied for a U.S. visa in order to attend a speaking engagement at the University of Washington that was to take place in April 2007. His visa application was denied. Although the government stated that the denial was the result of a “miscommunication,” the circumstances strongly suggest that Dr. Lafta was refused a visa because of conclusions he had drawn in a 2006 article regarding the number of civilian casualties in Iraq.
- Tariq Ramadan. Professor Ramadan, a Swiss national, is a professor at the University of Oxford and, in the words of Time magazine, “the leading Islamic thinker among Europe’s second- and third-generation Muslim immigrants.” In 2004, he was offered a teaching position at the University of Notre Dame; only days before he was to begin teaching, however, he was told that his visa had been revoked under a provision that renders inadmissible anyone who has “endorse[d] or espouse[d]” terrorism. After U.S. groups filed suit, the government abandoned the accusation that Professor Ramadan had endorsed terrorism. It continues to exclude him now, however, under the INA’s “material support” provisions. We believe that the material support provisions do not apply to Professor Ramadan, and the evidence strongly suggests that he has been excluded not because of his donations but because of his vocal criticism of U.S. foreign policy.2
- Rafael de Jesus Gallego Romero. Father Gallego is a parish priest from the village of Tiquisio in North-Central Colombia, where he ministers to miners and peasants, facilitates community support initiatives, and runs a local radio station. Father Gallego is also a vocal critic of government-supported paramilitary units acting on behalf of multinational mining corporations. In the fall of 2008, Father Gallego received invitations to travel to the United States to address universities, activist organizations, community radio stations, and churches. The U.S. government simply failed to adjudicate the visa. Father Gallego eventually learned from the Provincial Jesuit, who has ties to the American Embassy, that his visa was going to be denied “for national security reasons,” but he has never received a formal notification that his visa was adjudicated, let alone an explanation of the grounds on which it was denied.
- Dora María Téllez. Professor Téllez was a leading figure in Nicaragua’s revolution against the brutal Somoza regime, and has served in her country as a government minister, political activist, and professor. She has also been a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy. In 2004, she was appointed Robert F. Kennedy visiting professor in Latin American Studies at Harvard’s Divinity School and Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies. When Professor Téllez attempted to enroll at a language class in California in preparation for that post, however, her student visa was denied on the ground that she had previously engaged in terrorist acts, despite the fact that she had been granted visas to enter the United States in the past.
Ideological exclusion compromises the vitality of academic and political debate in the United States at a time when that debate is exceptionally important. The practice was misguided during the Cold War and it is misguided now. We strongly urge you to end the practice and to immediately revisit the cases noted above.
Sincerely,
The Advocates for Human Rights
African Services Committee
American Anthropological Association
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of Massachusetts
American Association of University Professors
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
American Civil Liberties Union
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California
American Federation of Teachers
American Friends Service Committee – Project Voice
American Gateways
American Immigration Lawyers Association
American Library Association
American Political Science Association
American Sociological Association
American Statistical Association
American Studies Association
The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
The Asian Law Caucus
Association of American Publishers
Association of Research Libraries
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights
California Scholars for Academic Freedom
Center for Campus Free Speech
Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights
The Center for Women's Health and Human Rights at Suffolk University
Citizens for Health
Chicago Branch, National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression
Colombia Support Network
Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
The Constitution Project
Defending Dissent Foundation
Equal Justice Society
Feminists for Free Expression
First Amendment Project
Friends Committee on National Legislation
General Commission on Religion and Race, The United Methodist Church
Hitec Aztec Collaborations/FM Global
Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project
Immigration Justice Clinic at John Jay Legal Services, Inc.
Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action
Just Foreign Policy
Justice Now
The Juvenile Justice Clinic at the University of North Carolina School of Law
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
Liberty Coalition
Linguistic Society of America
Maria Baldini-Potermin & Associates, P.C.
Masterman Institute on the First Amendment and the Fourth Estate at Suffolk University
Law School
Middle East Studies Association
The Multiracial Activist
Muslim American Society of Boston
Muslim Bar Association of New York
Muslim Public Affairs Council
National Coalition Against Censorship
National Council of Jewish Women
National Economic and Social Rights Initiative
National Education Association
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
New England First Amendment Center at Northeastern University
New York Civil Liberties Union
The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University
Oak Institute for Human Rights at Colby College
Office of the Americas
Open Society Policy Center
PEN American Center
The Rutherford Institute
The Sikh Coalition
Society of American Law Teachers
South Asian Americans Leading Together
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
United Steel Workers AFL-CIO
Washington Defender Association’s Immigration Project
cc: David Martin, Principal Deputy General Counsel
Esther Olavarria, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy
David Ogden, Deputy Attorney General
Janice L. Jacobs, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs
Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter, Director, Policy Planning Staff
Footnotes:
1 Professor Habib’s exclusion is the subject of ongoing litigation. Am. Sociological Ass’n, et al. v.
Clinton, et al., No. 07-cv-11796 (D. Mass. filed Sept. 25, 2007).
2 Professor Ramadan’s exclusion is the subject of ongoing litigation. Am. Acad. of Religion, et al.
v. Napolitano, et al., No. 08-0826-cv (2d Cir.).
Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (21) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 7 |
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 11 - 15 of 683 |
|
|
