April 03, 2003
The Christian Science Monitor
By C. Paul
At the same moment President Bush ordered troops into Iraq, he also
tightened requirements on those seeking entrance into the United
States.
Refugees from 33 nations with possible links to the Al Qaeda terrorist
organization now will automatically be held in confinement when they
request asylum upon arriving in the US.
The directive is part of Operation
Liberty Shield, a broad initiative by
the Bush administration to tighten domestic security during the
war with
Iraq. But like some of the other security-tightening measures the
US has
put in place since the events of Sept. 11, this one is stirring
a rousing
debate over the appropriateness of singling out people because
of one
thing: their nationality.
Many security experts view the new asylum
policy as a prudent measure.
During a prolonged war in the Middle East, they say, members of
Al Qaeda or
other terrorist groups might be emboldened to seek retribution
against the
US. Detaining refugees until their cases are adjudicated - now
likely to
stretch beyond the current average of two to six months - could
prevent
would-be terrorists from using the asylum system to enter and move
freely
throughout the US.
But some human rights groups and civil libertarians
say the new policy
violates treaties the US has signed and threatens the objectivity
of asylum
officers who decide which refugees are to be detained and which
are not.
Some see in this latest move a severe and distressing contradiction
in US
policy.
"
It's two-faced for the administration to declare war on Iraq in the
name
of liberating Iraqi people and at the same time jail them when they
come
here escaping human rights abuses," says Wendy Young of the
Women's
Commission for Refugee Women and Children in Washington.
The new US approach to screening refugees from the 33 "blacklisted"
countries is likely to come as a rude shock to people fleeing them.
They
are expecting a sympathetic ear - not months in a jail.
That was true
for Ali Abbod, who asked that his real name not be used to
protect his family in Iraq. Mr. Abbod expected the US would surely
grant
him asylum after he fled Iraq via Syria and China in the summer
of 1999,
arriving in Los Angeles in November. His hopes were riding on America's
longtime opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime. Abbod told US officials
he
had been imprisoned and tortured in Iraq because of his religious
beliefs.
Despite a dentist's report that Abbod likely had been tortured
several
times, the former engineer was held in federal detention facilities
near
Los Angeles for 16 months before his plea for asylum was officially
rejected. He was shocked by what had happened, he says. He is appealing
the
decision and is now living in the Los Angeles area.
"
When I leave China, I had other choice," says Abbod, who over
the past
four years has learned to speak broken English. "It's easy to
me to go to
Canada, easy to me to go to Europe, but I choose United States because
I
believe 100 percent I will get asylum." Abbod's request was
rejected, say
his lawyers, because the judge who heard his case did not believe
his story.
While Abbod's detention was unusually long, it occurred at the discretion
of a federal official. Under the new policy, refugees like Abbod
will face
prolonged detention - without exception. Before the latest change,
most
detentions lasted up to six months.
No more option for 'parole'
In the past, refugees awaiting a decision
on their request for asylum could
apply for parole. If granted, parole allowed them to avoid long-term
detention, often spent in a prison next to common criminals. Now,
when
refugees from one of the 33 countries on the new US list arrive
in America,
they immediately will be put into detention with no option for
parole.
The move stems from the Bush administration's concern that a would-be
terrorist who is caught without the right documents could pose
as a
political refugee and then commit acts of terror while on parole.
"
We have to ask, 'Are they fleeing persecution, or is this an Iraqi
agent
trying to blend in using a story?' " says Bill Strassberger,
spokesman for
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. "At this
time, we have
to be much more careful."
None of the men responsible for Sept.
11 gained entrance into the US
through the asylum system. But other terrorism conspiracists have,
including Omar Abdel Rahman, an Egyptian sheik convicted in 1995
for
plotting to blow up United Nations headquarters, and Gazi Ibrahim
Abu
Mezer, a Palestinian who, after receiving parole from detention in
1997,
allegedly plotted to bomb the New York subway.
Singling out refugees who come primarily from the Middle East, say
many
legal experts, is reasonable in light of the rising threat.
"
You have to have some sort of category for the first cut, because
you
can't have perfect intelligence on each refugee," says Paul
Kamenar of the
Washington Legal Foundation, a public-interest legal group.
Before this year, appeals for asylum by people from nations with
ties to Al
Qaeda have been disproportionately successful. Between 1991 and 2002,
more
than 80 percent of Iraqis interviewed by immigration officers upon
entering
the country were granted asylum. The average approval rate is 31
percent.
Other countries with top 10 approval rates include Afghanistan, Iran,
Somalia, Sudan, and Syria - countries now on the list of 33.
The higher rates do not result from specific policy. Immigration
officials,
say experts, simply are more likely to believe the claim of someone
who
comes from a country with a repressive political regime.
Close tie to foreign policy
But human rights activists worry that the new policy will taint the
objectivity of the asylum process, in which immigration officials
grant
asylum on the merits of each individual's case. Their concerns are
rooted
in historical precedent.
Experts say that during the cold war asylum was granted much more
frequently to immigrants fleeing communist countries, while refugees
from
African nations with severe human rights violations were disproportionately
turned away.
"
That was a period of time when asylum decisions were made by officials
who
rubber-stamped foreign policy made at the State Department," says
Bill
Frelick, director of the refugee program of Amnesty USA.
Now, he and others say, the government's use of a blacklist of nations
could be reinstituted whenever the US military is active overseas,
or
whenever the US changes its foreign policy.
In announcing the new policy March 17, Tom Ridge, secretary of Homeland
Security, said the US had similarly used a list to weigh the threat
posed
by asylum applicants right after Sept. 11.
According to Mr. Strassberger, immigration officers began considering
applicants' ties to nations supporting Al Qaeda even before this
most
recent policy was announced.
"
Up to this point, we have attempted to err on the side of caution
in
detaining people prior to the decision by the immigration judge,"
Strassberger says. "It's something that quite possibly we should
have been
doing sooner under the circumstances."
Some human rights activists acknowledge that the threat of terrorism
is
great enough to warrant prolonged detentions of refugees whose stories
might not be immediately believable.
Still, most agree that this new
security policy comes at too high a cost.
The new directive, they say, undermines international treaties
and flouts
what has become a pillar of the human rights movement.
Under Article
3 of the Geneva Refugee Convention of 1951, nations can
detain a refugee only if that individual is found to be a security
risk
because of his or her own behavior or background, not on their nationality.
"
It's pretty clear someone should not be detained unless there is
an
individual determination for the need of their detention," says
Eleanor
Acer, director of the asylum program of the Lawyers Committee for
Human
Rights.
The Bush administration cites language in the Refugee Convention
that
allows for exceptions during grave circumstances, such as war.
But many
legal experts agree that the provision applies only to individuals,
not to
a whole class of people or citizens of a specific country.
Shades of World War II
Indeed, the policy of detaining a group of
people on the basis of their
nationality alone, say some experts, is reminiscent of the nation's
internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. A new US move
to
significantly redraw asylum law would reverberate around the world.
"
Other countries contemplating more severe detention regimes will
take
their cue from us that this is OK," says James Hathaway, an
asylum law
expert at the University of Michigan.
Abbod, for one, was surprised
once he arrived in America to find himself
living next to people who reminded him of the very man from which
he was
fleeing.
"
When I arrived to Los Angeles, I said, 'Thank you, God, everything's
OK,"
says Abbod. "But no. In prison I see men even like Saddam Hussein."
