SCREEN-L Archives

May 2001, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Shari L. Rosenblum" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 7 May 2001 23:07:41 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (94 lines)
Susan Tavernetti reports:
>At the recent San Francisco International Film Festival (April 19-
>May 3), artistic director Peter Scarlet moderated a roundtable on 
>Iranian cinema. The panel included the co-producer of MARAL 
>who lives in Iran (but whose name escapes me), Behrouz 
>Vossoughi (the "De Niro of Iranian cinema" now living in the 
>U.S.) and Sussan Deyhim (composer, SHIRIN NESHAT 
>UNVEILED),  among others. Scarlet was outraged by Jafar 
>Panahi's detainment and fingerprinting in New York while en 
>route from Hong Kong to the Buenos Aires and later to the San 
>Francisco and Los Angeles Film Festivals. He emphasized a 
>point not mentioned in Panahi's letter: The State Department has 
>traditionally WAIVED such transit visas and fingerprinting for 
>artists, including those entering the country from Iran. 
[. . .  ] [excerpted portion commented upon herebelow]
>Therefore, Panahi 
>found this newly instituted policy (Scarlet points his finger at the 
>Bush administration) particularly humiliating and refused to be 
>fingerprinted. 

Perhaps some actual legal / historical facts would help here.  

First, according to the Federal Register, the requirement to fingerprint 
and photograph non-immigrants bearing Iranian travel documents was 
promulgated under President Clinton on or about September 5, 1996.  

Also according to the Federal Register, this policy was reiterated in 
July 1998, still under President Clinton, at which point the Clinton 
government consolidated previous requirements for nonimmigrants 
carrying travel documents from Iran, Iraq, Libya and Sudan.

According to the July 1998 notice, the Attorney General, in consultation 
with the Secretary of State, has the power to exempt certain nonimmigrants 
from the regulation in the interest of foreign policy or national security.

Media sources, both American and Iranian, confirm several instances of 
Iranian protest against the fingerprint/photography requirement --- 
academics, fencing teams, wrestlers refusing to comply and being sent 
back home --- occurring primarily  between September 1996 and December 
2000, solidly under the Clinton regime.  

Not surprisingly, the outrage expressed on each of these occasions used 
the very same verbiage used by Mr. Panahi in his ostensibly fresh outrage 
this past month.

Now, to the next point.  Transit visas, despite Mr. Scarlet's confusion, are 
apparently an entirely different question.

Again according to the Federal Register, citizens of certain nations are not 
eligible for transit without visa (TWOV) *under any circumstances.*   

Iran has been among these listed nations since 1982.  Others, as noted on 
the most recent list, effective February 5, 2001 (or April 6, 2001 pursuant 
to extension) include Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Belarus, 
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burma, Burundi,  Central African Republic,  
People's Republic of China,  Congo (Brazzaville), Cuba, India, Iran, 
Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Serbia, Sierra 
Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Sudan -- a group that proudly 
encompasses members races White, Black, Latin, Asian, Arab, Indian 
and other.

Ms. Tavernetti cites to Mr. Scarlet further:
>Panahi 
>was not fingerprinted upon entering the US last September for 
>the New York Film Festival, nor in March when he went to 
>Washington, D.C., for a tribute in his honor. 

To attend either event mentioned here, Mr. Panahi would not have needed 
a transit visa -- i.e., as he was not transiting through the U.S. on his way 
to someplace else.

Given the facts as stated by Mr. Scarlet, I suspect that both trips were 
conducted under a different class of non-immigrant visa --- maybe even 
an O-1, which, according to the State Department and other online sources, 
is available under stringent regulation to (inter alia) foreign nationals who 
have made extraordinary achievement in art and science, including in 
the motion picture industry, and are coming to the United States to 
perform temporary services relating to an event or events.

In any case, the fact that he was at such times treated in a way that 
comports with his stated expectations seems to me to go a long 
way toward confirming that the treatment he received at JFK this last 
time was not a result of racist rejection of his national origin, which 
he presumably had on all points of touchdown on U.S. soil, but rather a 
result of his failure to comply with U.S. regulations for entry and his 
refusal to comply with U.S. regulations upon arrival, two substantial acts 
that distinguish this trip from the others.

Shari L. Rosenblum

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2