Mugo Gatheru's 1952 encounter with U.S. immigration officials highlights the historical trend of using immigration law to suppress political dissent. Gatheru, a Kenyan student, faced interrogation about his political activism, which was framed by officials within a Cold War narrative. To combat this, he reframed the interrogation, asserting that his activism was a legitimate expression of democratic ideals, akin to those of U.S. founders. This historic case parallels modern situations, such as that of Mahmoud Khalil, illustrating a continued use of immigration enforcement to silence dissent under the guise of national security, regardless of the shifting global political landscape.
Mugo Gatheru's case exemplifies how immigration enforcement historically targeted dissenters on campus, with a current echo in the treatment of Palestinian advocates accused of terrorism.
The same Immigration and Nationality Act used against Gatheru in the 1950s is now deployed against Mahmoud Khalil, demonstrating a persistent effort to silence dissent across decades.
Mugo Gatheru reframed his perceived 'agitation' as a continuation of democratic ideals, challenging the political binary of his time by citing George Washington.
Seventy-three years later, immigration law continues to function as a mechanism for political suppression, sidelining dissenters through accusations of being security threats.
Collection
[
|
...
]