UNITED STATES: Terrorist Laws Already Striking at Immigrants

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

WASHINGTON, May 17 1996 (IPS) - The main provisions of new anti- terrorist legislation will not take effect for many months, but some U.S. immigrant groups claim they are already feeling the pinch.

The law, signed by President Bill Clinton last month, is being implemented in several phases over the year, and this fall procedures go into effect to exclude summarily from the United States immigrants who are deemed members of terrorist groups.

But some language of the law aimed at terrorists is already being used by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) to deport or harass immigrants in general, their advocates say.

Even legal residents with “green card” work permits, they claim, are among those being targeted by the INS, using the provision of the new law aimed at immigrants who commit minor crimes.

Previously, explains Ursula Levelt, legal director of the Centre for Immigrants’ Rights in New York, U.S. laws were such that “if you commit a crime and you show rehabilitation, and it’s not a serious crime, you won’t be deported.”

Now, because the new law opens the door for deportation after any crime, that clarity is gone, she argues.

Judy Rabinovitz, senior staff counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said the old laws essentially gave legal U.S. residents a second chance to stay in the country if they committed minor criminal offenses.

“What the bill does is basically eliminate that second chance,” she argues.

Although he signed into law the legislation containing this provision into law, President Clinton — who is seeking re- election this year — has objected to this change, arguing its does little to discourage terrorists.

Clinton, according to Rabinovitz, is looking to include language that would repeal this change in immigration reform legislation pending before Congress.

What has resulted, Levelt contends, is “a crazy atmosphere in the courts,” where INS officials have sought to deport immigrants who commit minor crimes, while judges refuse to rule on the cases until the laws are more clearly interpreted.

The current court woes are just the tip of the iceberg compared to what is to come, activists say. “It’s going to be really horrible,” Levelt predicts. “The law’s making it really easier to deport people.”

“The negative atmosphere, or chain effect, has already started,” argues Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based lobby. “The sentiment in the immigrant communities is that they are being targeted, especially those with unpopular political views.”

Even louder complaints will come from immigrants in the coming months, warns Greg Nojeim, ACLU legislative counsel.

By November, he points out, provisions will be in place to exclude immigrants summarily from the country if they are members of groups deemed terrorist, such as Lebanon’s Hizbollah (Party of God) or the Palestinian Hamas (or Islamic Resistance Movement).

These provisions, Nojeim adds, require the establishment of secret panels hear to evidence for the deportation of suspected terrorists.

While such courts remain unformed, many activists say government officials are concerned about the possible implications in terms of civil rights.

“It’s not clear right now how it will be implemented,” Awad says. But he adds that government officials have assured that the legislation “is being studied to see the effects of each provision on civil rights.”

Groups, such as the ACLU, are preparing to challenge certain provisions banning all fund-raising for groups deemed terrorist — even for charitable purposes — and restricting “habeas corpus” appeals of lower-court decisions. These provisions may violate the U.S. Constitution, the ACLU claims.

But an equally large concern in coming months, Nojeim says, will be the ability to “monitor Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) actions under the new authorities granted in the terrorism bill.”

He worries the legislation greatly enhances the FBI’s ability to investigate unpopular groups, even though — by ACLU estimates — the FBI already was able to authorise two million wiretaps of U.S. citizens in 1994 alone.

“What is likely happening (already) is FBI investigation of fund-raising,” Nojeim says.

Many groups — particularly Islamic charities or political groups involved in Middle East affairs — already are privately saying that their funding is drying up because people are afraid of running afoul of the new law.

One Palestinian activist, who spoke to IPS on condition of anonymity, says the current “chilling effect” is part of a growing trend since the 1990-91 Gulf War against Iraq to demonise even charitable work by Muslim groups.

Awad agrees that Muslim groups — especially those opposed to the U.S. stance on the Middle East peace process — have been hit particularly hard, with their troubles increasing dramatically in January 1995, when Clinton identified a dozen mainly Muslim groups as terrorist threats.

The image of Islamist terrorism was invoked constantly during Congressional debate on the bill, even though the event that first sparked the demand for the new law — the Apr 19, 1995, bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City — allegedly was the work of two right-wing former U.S. soldiers.

“The immigrant community feels it has been targeted for political reasons, not for any criminal act,” Awad says.