Does any foreign national have a "right" to entry into the US?

Are all foreign nationals the enemy?

Looks like Cat was not cleared even when cleared:<blockquote class="smalltext">Abdul Bari said the U.S. concern appears to focus on Islam's links to the Palestinians Relief and Development Fund, or Interpal, a London-based group that provides aid to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Interpal's chairman, Ibrahim Hewitt, previously worked as secretary to Islam, who changed his name and became a Muslim in the late 1970s. In August 2003, the U.S. government officially labeled Interpal a "specially designated global terrorist" organization. It alleged that the charity had assisted the militant Palestinian group Hamas, which has launched numerous bomb attacks against Israeli civilians and troops. The British government's Charity Commission froze Interpal's assets pending an investigation, which ended last September when the commission found that the U.S. allegations were baseless.</blockquote>

He doesn't have to be the "enemy", just "unwelcome"; a persona non grata (ie. more trouble than he's worth - BTW, has he ever acknowledged that his support for the fatwa on Rushdie was wrong? and why would he wish to visit a country of "infidels" anyway? For a right of right wing view of this see: http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/schlussel/schlussel_026.htm)

I really think it was about the bad 70s folk pop.

"Oh I've been smiling lately, dreaming about the world as one
And I believe it could be, some day it's going to come

Cause out on the edge of darkness, there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country, come take me home again"

Peace Train. Bad 70s pop. But who knew Cat's "world as one" was dar al-Islam?

Yes!! Thank God! We're finally keeping democracy safe from the Peace Train.

No, what the US is really keeping "safe" is the choice not to hear Yusuf Islam aka Cat Stevens make statements like these on its soil:<blockquote class="smalltext">

“The Jews seem neither to respect God nor his creation. Their own holy books contain the curse of God brought upon them by their prophets on account of their disobedience to Him and mischief in the earth. We have seen the disrespect for religion displayed by those who consider themselves to be 'God's chosen people.'...There will be no justice until all the land is given back to its rightful owners... Only Islam can bring peace back to the Holy Land.”</blockquote>

A pluralist, or multiculturalist, the Catman is not.

In other words, the Catman's Peace Train has no room for you, infidel.

Warning Will Robinson! Warning Will Robinson!<blockquote class="smalltext">Unattributed pasting is wasting bandwidth. Make quick with the URL for above as well as some factual context.</blockquote>Besides, it is not anti-semetic to point out the second sentence - have you read about the whuppin' the Lord laid upon them? The first sentence is stark but is ok if you could also say "The Swedes seem to neither respect God or his creation". The last three sentences are opinion and not inciteful. <p>Has he ever made a call to violence? This quotation is a call for justice. You may not agree with the opinion or the need for justice but this is hardly a call for death or hate. I am not suggesting you are saying that it is a call for death or hate, by the way. I see it as just the sort of fervour that unappealing evangelical Christians might display about their version of the faith. Sadly, this just reflects one side of the clash of faiths that seem to need to have their homes on the same patch of earth.

The attribution is contained in my second post, if any one cared to LINK IT (Ed. pls. take note).
Now, the point is that these type of statements offer nothing useful to the discussion of "peace" and are simply inciteful of derision of a particular religious group. BTW, if you made the same statements about Muslims, you might have to go into hiding from the Catman and his believers (ps. I'm sure Salman can put you up).

The artist formerly known as Cat Stevens did make a call to violence. He supported The fatwa against Rushdie and he also supports the blind cleric convicted of planning the 1993 bombing of the WTC.
He may have been a pacifist in his earlier incarnation but actually promoting censorship via killing someone, warrants the US not letting him in.

Well, that is different. Why was that not highlighted anywhere.

SN: Helpful hint. Use the <a href="www.genx40.com">Gen X is SOOOO great!</a> for around any link you care to make and the blog-tastic backend around here makes the magic. Practice with the "preview" link.

Stevens was a religious nut in his early days. The G&M published a great back page piece on one of his visits to Canada.

He's mellowed a lot since the old days, but he is still too Godly for me.

As for Rushdie, Stevens' long claimed that it was an ambush interview and a misinterpretation. Somehow, his clarification doesn't get carried on the supposedly "self-correcting" blogosphere. One blogger did put it up and I'll try to dig out the link. Most others prefer to publish whatever fits their own preconceptions. No different from non-bloggers.

Note, Stevens entered the USA about 4 months ago, with no trouble.

Very good observations, Ikram.

Here's the quote

"So?back in February 1989 I was delivering a talk about my journey to Islam at Kingston University in London, when somebody (probably a disguised journalist) mischievously posed a question about Islam’s view on apostates and blasphemers. As a student who had studied the issue for the first time, I simply did my best by answering direct from legal texts which I had read Instead of reporting my response in context, which I naively expected, suddenly the headline in next day’s paper read “Cat Says Kill Rushdie!” Well, needless to say, all hell then broke loose and my political education had really begun. Thank God the newspaper responsible, Today, has since folded and is now out of circulation; unfortunately the monstrous myth it created still survives."

http://catstevens.com/articles/00236/index.html

Make of it what you will. Of course, no non-American has a right to enter the USA. Border control is arbitrary and no judicial review is required. Back in 1985, Farley Mowat was prohibited from entering the USA for some very stupid reasons.

My pal Dwayne was refused in the mid-80s entry for having a typewriter. They figured he was going to work. He was just too lazy the cleaning out of the car after a move.

I think its rather funny that everyone (even the Catman) thinks unfettered entry to the US is their "entitlement"; something not to be interfered with. And they are "outraged" that they might be, for some reason, good or otherwise, barred entry. If its such a "bad" place, why is everyone, even the Catman, trying to get in?

No one says that the US is a bad place. But corporations are allowed to move from one country to another, so why not people (as long as they're not dangerous)? I think we should start with the premise that the world is better if things are open and people are allowed to move about freely.

[Ed.: <i>Two minutes for rightist knee-jerk in form of untenable use of "entitlement". All that is being discussed is an aberration from normal border crossing freedom.</i>]<p>While customs posts are by necessity one of the most powerful points of the arbitrary discretion of state power (see Ian's post from last year if you have any doubts) please let's recall that they brought the plane down in Maine instead of Boston. What did that cost and why was that necessary? If he indeed visited four months ago and was not stopped by the British (aka the USA's best pal), he certainly is not on any A-list. There are incongruities that are magnified by his general peaceful nature (Ikram has won that point so far) and faded folky celebrity. I think his response of irritation and good humour was entirely appropriate.<p>It reminds me of the time around 1986 that I I got on the Halifax-Dartmouth ferry and found it full of cops in semi-riot gear. I was wondering to myself what was going on when I remembered that some metal band had spawned a small ruckus the weekend before. This was cearly going to be a show against concert goers gone mad. They all looked a bit stupid when the ferry filled with dreamy yuppy couples, the shes in summer dresses and the hes in pastel sweaters. It was a Chris De Burgh concert. The police hadn't inquired as to his difference from Megadeath.