Closing Americaís Doors How Terrorist Attacks Are Affecting U.S. Immigration Policies by Shaazka Beyerle Immigration Facts ï As of March 2000, 10.4 percent of the population was foreign born. In comparison, from 1870 to 1920, the foreign-born number was 15 percent. ï In 2000, one third of the foreign-born population in the United States was naturalized citizens. ï 1n 1998, the top 10 countries from which legal immigrants came to the United States were: Mexico, China, India, Philippines, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Cuba, Jamaica, El Salvador and Canada. ï In 2000, the top 10 places from which refugees fled and resettled in the United States were: Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Soviet Union, Somalia, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan, Cuba, Iraq, Croatia and Liberia. ï Sevety-five percent of immigrants come to the United States legally, and in this group, another three quarters join close family members already living here. ï In 1998, the United States welcomed approximately 737,000 new legal residents; 604,000 were permanent residents and 133,000 were refugees. ï Four out of 10 undocumented immigrants enter the country legally with student, tourist or other temporary visas, and then remain after their visas expire. Source: National Immigration Forum Some of the greatest attributes of Americaóopenness to foreigners, freedom of movement, sharing of knowledge and skillsóare the ones that the terrorists of Sept. 11 best understood and used to their own obscene advantage. They passed through doors to our country that are generously open in comparison to the policies of most other nations in the world. But will these doors remain open? Or will the quest for justice and the real threat of future terrorism close them? Although it is still too early to tell, immigration policy is under the microscope. Significant, and in some cases, highly controversial anti-terrorism measures have recently been taken that directly impact immigrants and foreign nationals in the United States. The USA Patriot Act is the legislative lynchpin in the administrationís anti-terrorism campaign. Proposed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 19, 2001, debated and signed into law less than six weeks later, it is 342 pages in length, covers 350 subject areas, contains 21 legal amendments, and involves 40 federal agencies. Among others, immigration agencies, lawyers and civil rights advocates are scrambling to interpret it. According to the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) can detain non-citizens for seven days before bringing immigration or criminal charges. The American Civil Liberties Union asserts that non-citizens who have an immigration status violation, such as overstaying a visa, but are not found to be involved in terrorist activities, could still face indefinite detention if their home country refuses to accept them. On the other hand, the act gives special immigrant status to non-citizens who were adversely affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. For instance, the grandparents of any child who lost parents in the attacks are eligible for an immigrant visa if either of the parents was a citizen or permanent resident. President Bush issued a Homeland Security Presidential Directive to ìimprove immigration policies and make it more difficult for terrorists to enter or remain in the United States,î according to a White House document. Among its features is the creation of a Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, which will coordinate programs to restrict entry, detain, prosecute or deport non-citizens deemed a threat. Another component is to improve coordination of immigration and customs policies with Canada and Mexico. The presidential directive also ordered a review of student visa policies ìto institute tighter controls and ensure that student visas are being issued appropriately.î However, it is not clear what these measures are just yet. The secretaries of State, Education, Defense, and Energy, as well as the attorney general and the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, are supposed to develop a program to delineate ìsensitiveî courses of study, reject visa applicants that are ìproblematic,î and track the status of foreign students in the country. Local universities do not seem to have felt an impact thus far. Fanta Aw, the director of International Student Services at American University, said that any effects will be apparent once the winter semester begins at the end of January. ìStudents have concerns for visa issuance,î she said. A new State Department directive has instituted a 20-day waiting period for back checks on male students ages 18 to 45 from 26 countries ranging from the Middle East to Africa and parts of Southeast Asia. Some students may be late for the onset of classes or will not be able to make the new semester. Foreign applications did not change in autumn, but it remains to be seen what happens in February, when the next round will start. When asked about the presidential directive, Aw said, ìThe universities have been working with the INS already. With the Directive, the INS is now able to get funding to implement things.î A pilot program called Beta Test is up and running in Boston, and it is hoped that a nationwide system will be in place by 2003, perhaps even by June 2002. Technology will play a big role in the reporting system. It will be in real time and online, rather than on paper, which is still the modus operandi of the moment. Beyond these measures, according to Denise Gilman, project director for Immigrant and Refugee Rights at the Washington Lawyersí Committee, immigration policy is retrenching, but it is a general change in practice rather than in rules. ìThere has been a [180]-degree turn away from regularization. Advocates are still hopeful that the debate on regularization and other such measures will be revisited in the future,î she said, referring to more open policies such as the proposed amnesty for Mexican illegals and earned residency programs. Furthermore, approved refugee admissions were blocked until the first week of December. Visa applicants from countries in which there are believed to be terrorist elements must go through security checks. Existing regulations, which often lie in the books, are now being used to their fullest possibility, said Gilman. One example is the ìResponsible Cooperators Programî announced by Attorney General John Ashcroft on Nov. 29. Non-citizens (including illegals) in the United States and abroad who provide information that helps to catch terrorists or stop terrorist attacks could be eligible for S visas, which allow a person to live and work in the United States for three years, and to apply for permanent residence and eventual citizenship. The challenge is the definition of valuable information. There are no criteria at this point. It is up to the discretion of federal prosecutors to decide whether the information is useful or not. Among anti-terrorism measures, what is making headlines and editorial pages, and galvanizing civil rights groups more than anything else, is not the new legislation or presidential directives; it is the policies and regulations to detain non-citizens that have been issued unilaterally by the Department of Justice and by an executive order signed by President Bush without notice, congressional authorization or public debate. At least 1,200 foreigners have been arrested since Sept. 11. With some exceptions, their names, location of incarceration, and charges brought against them have not been released. The Department of Justice has officially said that the detainees are not prevented from identifying themselves and communicating with the public. However, Michael Boyle of the American Immigration Lawyers Association testified to the U.S. Senate that detainees are being limited to one collect call per week, denied visits from family, given incorrect phone numbers for legal associations, not told they have the right to a lawyer, or not informed that they actually do have a lawyer. Boyle also disputed the testimony of the Justice Department that every detainee has been charged with a violation of either immigration or criminal law. Contrary to the Patriot Act, he cited first-hand accounts of people held for up to a month without charges on the basis of a Sept. 20, 2001, Justice Department regulation that gives the INS authority to detain a non-citizen indefinitely ìin the event of an emergency or other extraordinary circumstances.î There are also cases of postponements in hearings, delays in release of detainees for whom an immigration judge set bond, and secret hearings for people charged with technical immigration violations. A number of embassies in Washington have been trying to determine whether or not citizens from their respective countries are being held. It is believed that Egypt, India, Pakistan, Turkey and Yemen have the highest number of citizens in detention. According to Asad Hayauddin, spokesman for the Embassy of Pakistan, the attorney general has released two listsó100 non-citizens facing federal and immigration charges, and 550 with immigration charges. Approximately 225 Pakistanis are incarcerated, though the embassy cannot get their names from the U.S. government. Diplomats can only contact detainees if they get their names through alternative sources, for instance, family members. Then the State Department arranges consular contact. The embassy reports that the situation is improving and the State Department has been very helpful. In democracies, there is no easy solution or magic formula to balance the need for national security and public safety, on the one hand, and to protect civil liberties and generous immigration policies, on the other hand. As long as the threat of terrorism exists, the nation will continue to face this challenge. Shaazka Beyerle is a freelance writer in Maryland.