Mr. GRASSLEY. The amendment would eliminate judicial review of removal proceedings where revocation of a visa is the sole ground for removal. That may sound technical and complex. but the amendment is actually quite simple in the way it works. It means that if the State Department should wrongly decide to revoke a visa. whether through bureaucratic error or misjudgment. and then the Department of Homeland Security tries to remove you from the United States. you have no opportunity to have your case heard in Federal court. the case ends at the Board of Immigration Appeals. It means a dissident lawfully admitted to the United States on a visitors visa could find himself giving a speech one day and then the very next day learn the Department of State revoked his visa based on false information provided by his home country. The dissident may even risk punishment upon return to his home country. But there will be no means to fight his removal in Federal court. The amendment means that when DHS invokes the ideological exclusion provision which allows the Government to exclude anyone from the country who endorses or espouses terrorism or persuades others to support terrorism. there is no judicial check to make sure that is. in fact. what is going on. and that great power is not being abused. As U.S. district judge Paul Crotty wrote in an opinion last year. rejecting the Governments efforts to exclude a Swiss citizen who had a visa to teach religion. conflict. and peacebuilding at Notre Dame University. While the Executive may exclude an alien for almost any reason. it cannot do so solely because the Executive disagrees with the content of the aliens speech and therefore wants to prevent the alien from sharing this speech with a willing American audience. That -is exactly the kind of case which would be barred by the amendment we are debating.
Keywords matched
visa Immigration