 |
By Albert Baldeo & Annan Boodram |
October 2001: On Friday, October 26, President Bush signed into law the USA PATRIOT Act, legislation which has brought several changes to US immigration laws. Activists argue that this law is saturated with several troubling civil liberties and human rights concerns. They say it throws the book at those who may be suspected of being linked to terrorism and, by virtue of its provisions, has the potential of catapulting many more innocent immigrants into the quagmire. Already the arrest and detention of more than 1000 persons since the September 11 bombings seems to be reflective of the this potential.
The TIME Magazine issue of November 5, 2001 has noted that "many of the other 970 (since the terrorist bombings) or so detainees have reason to be annoyed too. No evidence links the vast majority of them to terrorists...To be sure, many detainees have been charged with immigration violations or other crimes unrelated to terrorism. Yet some have been imprisoned for weeks in cramped conditions..."
Most Alarming Mandate
The new law's most alarming mandate sanctions the detention and deportation of people engaging in innocent associational activities protected by the Constitution, and permits the indefinite detention of immigrants and non-citizens who are not terrorists. This becomes possible because the law contains provisions that expand the definition of terrorism for the purposes of inadmissibility and removal, provides for mandatory detention of aliens who the Attorney General suspects have engaged in terrorist activity and limits judicial review.
Although most right thinking individuals would like to see Bin Laden dumped into the dustbin of history, many civil and human rights advocates are concerned that the legislation can be abused by the very guardians of democracy, and rightfully clamor that an important balance must be drawn in the use of these new sweeping powers. They argue that the Constitution must not be thrown through the window, democratic rights must not be abused and the real terrorists must be targeted, not innocent people.
Crackdown
In the wake of the new law the Justice Department is moving to crack down on foreigners with suspected terrorist ties, broadening the federal government's power to deny visas or deport immigrants who "endorse" terrorism. Under the new rules, immigration authorities can bar members of political or social groups that endorse terrorist activities. People who use their prominence to endorse terrorism can also be barred, and anyone certified by the attorney general as a threat to national security can be denied entry.
It is the department's first policy step toward implementing the sweeping anti-terrorism package that President Bush signed into law after weeks of rigorous debate in Congress.
Attorney General Ashcroft's plan includes the designation of 46 "terrorist organizations" worldwide, among them several linked to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network in Afghanistan, as well as other groups in the Middle East, Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
Foreigners found to have supported any of the 46 groups can now more easily be denied visas to enter the United States or be deported if they have already entered the country, Ashcroft and his aides said. And immigration officials can now cut through an often cumbersome bureaucratic process for establishing that a foreign visitor has known links to terrorist groups, thus weeding that individual out from the 30 million noncitizens who cross U.S. borders each month, officials said.
Civil liberties activists are already raising concerns.
"Our concern is over whether purely lawful activity could become the basis for deportation and thereby chill legitimate discussion and debate," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the Immigrants Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
That will not happen, insisted Justice Department officials, who added that they have no intention of deporting placard-waving foreign students or others who express ideas that could be seen as sympathetic to terrorists.
Ashcroft's measure also created a federal task force to better track foreign terrorists. The task force's job also will include hunting down any immigrants - legal or illegal - who may pose a threat to homeland security.
In addition, Ashcroft said, immigration officials will be toughening the visa process by requiring more detailed biographical material and more extensive background and security checks, including some applications that will be sent to Washington for further security reviews by the FBI and the CIA.
Limited Effects
These initiatives to tighten America's immigration policies will probably hasten the use of sophisticated new technologies, prod wary agencies into sharing more intelligence and, ultimately, add security to the nation's porous borders. But even these sweeping proposals to track terrorist suspects will have limited effect as long as the United States remains a nation open to global travel and commerce, experts said.
"We would feel a great deal more secure, but we'd be only marginally more secure," said Demetrios Papademetriou, director of the Migration Policy Institute in Washington. "Unless we really hunker down and basically close ourselves off to the rest of the world, these things are not going to protect us against a determined terrorist."
Given his reality some lawmakers have jumped in with other suggestions. Legislation sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), for example, would create a centralized database of all noncitizens who enter the United States. Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) want the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to have immediate access to the "lookout" lists of suspected terrorists maintained by the CIA and FBI.
"The screening of foreign nationals who seek entry into the U.S. must be improved," Kennedy said recently, calling for better intelligence; the use of biometric technologies, such as digitized fingerprints to check identities; and more effective screening of visa applicants at U.S. consular offices overseas.
Such proposals "can make it harder for bad guys to come in," said Angela Kelly, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant advocacy group in Washington, adding that more effective use of intelligence and technology helps "the goal of trying to isolate terrorists and not isolate America."
Indeed, Bush went out of his way to strike a balanced tone, declaring, "We welcome legal immigrants, and we welcome people coming to America. We welcome the process that encourages people to come to our country to visit, to study and to work. What we don't welcome are people who come to hurt the American people."
Student Visas
Until now, attempts to draw that distinction have not always met with success. Ever since the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, some members of Congress have called on the INS to develop a computerized method to track students and alert authorities if they disappear. Before Sept. 11, that approach was endangered by disputes over financing, but most of the opposition has since faded. Still, the project is considered technically difficult, and INS officials are racing to meet a congressional deadline of 2003 for the new system. Among other things the computer tracking system would require schools to report any change in a foreign student's status, such as enrollment, change of major or a move to a new address.
Speaking on this issue on October 29 President Bush that the U.S. would clamp down on foreign student visas - the document a ringleader of the Sept. 11 terror attacks used to enter the country.
"If a person applies for a student visa and gets it, we are going to make sure that person is going to school," Bush said at the first formal meeting of the newly assembled Homeland Security Council.
"We are going to be asking a lot of questions that heretofore have not been asked," the President said.
About 600,000 student visas are granted to foreigners each year, allowing them to attend more than 26,000 U.S. colleges and universities
Existing Laws Enough
Bush's actions on immigration policy take effect immediately and do not require congressional approval. But they have not been embraced by everyone.
These laws, immigration and civil rights activists argue, hit at the very notion that America is a nation of immigrants and that individual rights and liberties are the very cornerstone of our democracy. Those activists they express the hope that Congress will develop oversight hearings to monitor the impact of the new law and develop appropriate strategies, changes and responses. Also some members of Congress and the American Civil Liberties Union believe enforcement of existing laws would have been enough to ensure would-be terrorists are kept out of the U.S.
"The most important thing is good enforcement of some of the laws currently on the books," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the House Constitution subcommittee.
Refugees
Meanwhile attempts at tighter immigration controls have also led to talks with Canada aimed at a cross-border deal on refugee claimants and on "visa convergence" that would bring closer the two countries' requirements for visitors visas, Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan said recently.
The talks on a cross-border refugee agreement are aimed at a deal that would see refugee claimants who came to Canada via the United States turned back to American soil to make their asylum claim there. At the same time, countries that "sell" passports-of-convenience to foreign nationals are being targeted by both countries in negotiations aimed at drawing up similar lists of foreign countries whose citizens need visas -- and therefore more security checks -- to travel to North America. That has been one item on the wish list of U.S. officials who have called for Canada and the United States to harmonize immigration policies to establish a kind of continental security "perimeter" in North America.
The Canadian Alliance, which believes that refugees arriving without identification should be held at detention facilities while they are investigated, has pushed the government to strike a refugee deal with the United States. More than 40 per cent of those who claimed refugee status in Canada last year came here via the United States. Under international law, countries can return such refugee claimants to the "safe third country" they passed through, but in practice, it is done only after the countries involved strike a bilateral agreement.
Any deal would have deep repercussions for refugee claimants because the United States has a dramatically different, and usually more stringent, process for people claiming asylum there. Ms. Caplan said that only a small number who seek asylum in the United States get there through Canada.