HOGAN & HARTSON the Courts have become increasingly sensitive to this problem and have taken some positive steps to address it. Nonetheless, much remains to be done. The statutes and regulations described in this paper continue to threaten the First Amendment liberties of people who live in the United States both citizen and alien. Congress must take clear and forceful actions to change these laws so as to ensure that no person is punished because of his or her ideas and that no idea is suppressed because of its content. 3581v/63100 Washington Office 122 Maryland Avenue, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002202/544-1681 For further information contact: Morton H. Halperin, Director May 3, 1989 Susan R. Benda & Morton H. Halperin FREE TRADE IN IDEAS HEARINGS The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Administration of Justice for holding two days of hearings to publicize a myriad of restrictions currently in place on the free flow of information and ideas across U.S. borders. "These laws, which transform our national boundaries into an ideological barrier, impair the First Amendment rights of Americans to learn for themselves about the world, free from government intervention," stated Susan R. Benda, Legislative Analyst for the ACLU working on these issues. Benda continued: "In today's world, this geographical barrier to the marketplace of ideas is both anachronistic and dangerous." Morton H. Halperin, Director of the ACLU's Washington Office, pointed out: "The fact that the witness list is comprised entirely of Americans who have suffered from these laws demonstrates that while these restrictions undoubtedly have an impact on foreigners, it is U.S. citizens who are the real victims of attempts to interfere with the free movement of ideas across our borders." The ACLU launched a campaign for Free Trade in Ideas in 1984 to bring to public and congressional attention a broad variety of legal impediments to the free exchange of ideas between Americans and the international community. The goal of the campaign is to remove these legal barriers, including: the government's authority either to deny visas to foreigners, or to deport them, solely because of their political beliefs or association; a variety of laws, including trade embargoes, which control the import and export of information and ideas; and restrictions on the rights of Americans to travel abroad. As part of that campaign, the ACLU established a Coalition for Free Trade in Ideas, which consists of more than 40 national organizations dedicated to removing these legal restrictions in order to ensure the American public free access to ideas and information from abroad. ACLU National Headquarters: 132 West 43rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10036 212/944-9800 Norman Dorsen, President Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair, National Advisory Council Ira Glasser, Executive Director "Today's hearings stand as one measure of the success of the Free Trade in Ideas campaign, because they reflect the fact that these disparate laws are today more widely acknowledged as related to each other because of their restrictions on the constitutional rights of Americans," noted Halperin. Two of the witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearings are ACLU clients. Philip and Leila Eways waged a long, and ultimately successful battle, against deportation under the McCarran-Walter Act. Mrs. Eways is a native of Finland who is married to a U.S. citizen. The Immigration and Naturalization Service attempted to deport Mrs. Eways because of a decade old brief membership, while she was a college student, in the communist party of Finland. Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU's Immigration Project, was counsel to the Eways and assisted them in ultimately obtaining permanent resident status for Mrs. Eways. However, the McCarran-Walter Act subjected them to an unwarranted and offensive inquiry into her past political affiliations which left them feeling that their "dignity and rights were violated, and (their) faith in the ideals of freedom of speech (were) profoundly changed." In their testimony, they call on the Congress to repeal the McCarran-Walter Act, so that "no one else (will) have to be degraded and ridiculed by a government agency because of their past or present beliefs." The ACLU supports legislation introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and voted out of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration on April 18, which repeals the ideological exclusion provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act and replaces them with standards based on a foreigner's activities, rather than beliefs or associations. "The time is long overdue for the Congress to rid our ledgers of this vestige of McCarthyism and enact sensible modern standards that will protect our national security while respecting the constitutional rights of Americans," said Benda. The ACLU takes the position that Americans should be free to meet with foreigners in the U.S. regardless of the foreigner's political beliefs or associations, and that the admission of a foreigner to the U.S. should not convey U.S. government approval of that foreigner's point of view. The Frank bill would remove ideology as a basis for denying permanent resident status as well as non-immigrant (visitor) visas. If H.R. 1280 were the law of the land, Mrs. Eways would not have been subjected to deportation proceedings because of her prior political affiliation. John McAuliff, Director of the U.S.-Indochina Reconciliation Project (USIRP), a non-profit organization which organizes educational exchange visits to Vietnam, Kampuchea (Cambodia), and Laos and hosts visitors from those countries, is also an ACLU client. Mr. McAuliff has had difficulty obtaining visas for Vietnamese and Cambodians to visit the United States. In that regard, Kate Martin, ACLU National Security Litigation Project 2 Director, represented USIRP in negotiations with the State Department to obtain a visa for Mr. Nguyen Xuan Oanh, a Harvard trained Vietnamese economist to whom the State Department had initially denied a visa. In May, 1988 the ACLU was successful in obtaining the visa and several months later, Mr. Oanh came to the U.S. and met with academics and other interested parties in several cities across the country. Currently, the ACLU is assisting USIRP in a pending visa application for Khieu Kanharith, a prominent Cambodian journalist who wishes to come to the United States later this month to meet with foreign policy experts, journalists, academics and the Cambodian-American community. USIRP is also engaged in organizing visits for delegations of American educators and other professionals to Vietnam and Kampuchea. These countries are subject to an economic embargo, under which the Treasury Department, on March 8, 1988, issued regulations which prohibit Americans from arranging, promoting or facilitating group or individual tours or travel to Vietnam, Kampuchea and North Korea. (The Treasury Department's authority to directly restrict travel to countries subject to an economic embargo was upheld by the Supreme Court in the context of regulations prohibiting "transactions incident to travel" in Cuba. Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222 (1984)) Mr. McAuliff was informed that despite the fact that he was engaged in a nonprofit exchange program, the Treasury Department considered his activities to run afoul of the regulations. With Martin's assistance, Mr. McAuliff applied for a license to exempt him from the restriction, which he ultimately obtained on March 31, 1989. However, as he will testify, the regulations pose an unwarranted interference with his ability to engage in this First Amendment activity and remain a significant impediment to Americans wishing to travel to Vietnam and Kampuchea to engage in academic exchange programs, in part because they continue to prevent and to chill other organizations and universities from arranging such tours. The ACLU believes that while the Treasury Department's authority to restrict travel transactions with an embargoed nation has been upheld by the Supreme Court, these regulations, which directly interfere with the First Amendment rights of Americans in the United States to associate with other Americans and to facilitate the entirely legal goal of travel to countries where travel transactions are authorized, are beyond the scope of the Treasury Department's authority and are unconstitutional. The ACLU supports H.R. 1767, a bill introduced by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), which would ensure the right of international travel by prohibiting the use of the economic embargo laws to restrict travel transactions or transactions incident to the arrangement, promotion or facilitation of travel. The Berman bill, cosponsored by John Miller (R-WA), Barney Frank (D-MA), and Robert Kastenmeier (D-WI), has been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee. It reflects the view, endorsed by the ACLU, that the embargo authority is an inappropriate means by which to restrict the travel of Americans abroad, both because it was not intended for that purpose and because it restricts the travel of Americans based on foreign policy grounds, a form of ideological travel restriction which unduly interferes with the right of Americans to learn for themselves about the world. APPENDIX 5.-ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS, LONDON, ENGLAND: PREPARED STATEMENT WITH ATTACHMENTS ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Hearings On the issue of free trade in ideas These ん Notes on the topic from AUT are submitted for Consideration. The Association of University Teachers represents Academic and Academic Related Staff in Universities throughout the United Kingdom. It is the only body recognised to negotiate on their behalf. Its membership is about 65% of all academic and related staff. has long and consistent policy on the free national and international AUT trade in Ideas basis on a including, in particular, the free movement to meet and discuss ideas. of academic staff to of particular political beliefs AUT I Members #over have had difficulty in obtaining a considerable It is difficult to quantify the number of people involved. This is for two reasons: 1. The process of applying formally for a waiver is complicated and detailed, often resulting in the provision of a visa only days before is due to travel and then the applicant |