Home     |     home
ReadUM&Weep   |   Caley   |   THE COSMIC BULLET   |   3newpages   |   3Nu2timeout
3newpages



tel.: (514) 577-8453

http://www.yanickdery.com/


http://www.tidepool.org/archives/week7.5.99.html


SA491 Half unit Not available in 2003/04
Population Policies: Evolution and Impact
Teacher responsible
Professor J Hobcraft, A251
Availability
For MSc in Population and Development, MSc Development Studies, MSc Gender, MSc Gender and Development, MSc Gender and Social Policy, MSc Health, Population and Society and MSc City, Design and Social Science.
Core syllabus
This course examines the evolution of population policies and programmes at both the international and national levels. It is thus concerned with the interplay between politics and demography in shaping policies and programmes on health, fertility and family planning, population distribution, and population size.
Content
The international context; the role of the United Nations and other international agencies; the role of USAID and other major donors. How have priorities changed over time and what forces have shaped these changes? What impact do these external forces have in determining policies and programmes at the national level? What are the benefits and distortions involved in the interplay between the donor community and recipient countries? What role is played by international NGOs? What are the broad regional differences in approaches to these issues and how do these differences arise? The role of broader scientific and political contexts: sustained economic growth and sustainable development; colonial heritage; small is beautiful; the Club of Rome and zero population growth movement; the politics of the new right and the Reagan administration; the women’s movement; and organised religion, especially the Vatican and Islam.
The national context: the shaping of policies and programmes in individual countries and their consequences for programmes in other countries. Examples of influential policies and programmes will include China’s health and family planning programmes; and Indonesia and Bangladesh as shapers of international policy on the management of family planning programmes. How policies and programmes respond to differing circumstances: the role of religion and tradition; the public/private mix; strong and weak states; levels of development; democracy and human rights; coercion and choice; experiments and demonstration effects; political will; and the role of NGOs.
During the course the policies and programmes of a wide range of societies and agencies will be examined, including examples of successful and unsuccessful programmes. Lessons about good practice will be drawn.
Teaching
Ten x 1½-hour lectures and ten x 1½-hour seminars, MT.
Reading list
A detailed reading list will be provided at the start of the course. A good introduction to international debates can be obtained from L A Mazur (Ed), Beyond the Numbers: A Reader on Population, Consumption and the Environment, Island Press, Washington, 1994.
Assessment
A two-hour written examination in the ST.  
  Copyright ©
^







1. Cover Story
 Immigration Law in Post–9/11 America
By John Greenya Photographs by Howard Ehrenfeld

Recent legislation and government reorganization strive to make us more secure, but at what
 cost to our reputation as the land of the free?
One of the first questions raised in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
 on New York and Washington was, How had the 19 terrorists been able to enter and stay in the
 United States while plotting their offensive? Six months later, when the news broke that the
 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) had approved the change-of-status (from tourist
to student) visa applications of Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot-terrorists who
 had flown the planes into the World Trade Center, the nation’s immigration policies came under
 fire. It appeared that the INS was dangerously inept.

Cries for abolition merged with demands for reform, and Congress passed several major pieces
of legislation, including the USA PATRIOT Act and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry
 Reform Act, which were followed by a number of executive orders and administrative decrees.
Then on March 1, 2003, as a key part of the government’s plan to enhance security, the INS, which
 had operated under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice since 1941, became an agency
of the newly created Department of Homeland Security.
Since the passage and initial implementation of these measures, there has been an intense
debate over whether these new laws offer the best way to resolve the conflict between the need
for increased security, on the one hand, and the characteristically American practice of welcoming
immigrants, on the other. The debate is hardly new. For several decades there has been a widening
 gap between those who want to maintain the United States’ open-borders policy and those who
feel immigration needs to be sharply curtailed. There are also those who believe, like political
commentator and presidential hopeful Patrick Buchanan, that the time has come to close the
borders and declare a moratorium on all immigration.

“The challenge for the Administration and Congress,” wrote one pro-immigration interest group in
 January 2002, “is to implement measures that will make our country more secure without turning
away from our tradition as a nation of immigrants, and to keep closer watch on the home front
without seriously damaging our reputation as the land of the free.”
There is also a challenge for immigration lawyers, from the large firms that handle what used to be
 fairly routine immigration matters for big corporations to the solo practitioners who represent a
 wide variety of clients with immigration problems. For them the double-barreled effect of September
 11 and the INS’s new identity as part of the Department of Homeland Security has made a complex
area of legal practice even more daunting. In December 2002 Jack Pinnix, president of the American
Immigration Lawyers Association, called the situation an “emerging crisis,” and he warned against
 “those who would use national security as a pretext to move a restrictionist agenda.”
Immigration lawyers are now working in a very different climate. According to Michael Maggio,
 “A lot of people say that September 11 is the date that changed the practice of immigration law,
but that’s really not true. The date that changed the practice of immigration law was March 11, 2002,
because that’s the day the INS approved the change of visa classifications for the two hijackers who
 had been killed on September 11. And the way it changed everything is that whenever there is a
question of whether a case ought to be approved or denied, it’s going to be denied. No
 immigration official wants to be the one who lets in the next terrorist.”
José Pertierra, a veteran immigration lawyer with a large Spanish-speaking clientele, puts it
somewhat differently: “What we used to have in dealing with the INS was a culture of service.
What we have now is a culture of no.”

New Laws and Regulations
Hardly anyone disputes the fact that the changes are significant. According to the Congressional
Research Service’s summary of the law, the USA PATRIOT (an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening
America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act “seeks to
further close our borders to foreign terrorists and to detain and remove those within our borders.”
To that end, the act includes new criteria for denying entry, expands the definition of terrorist activity,
 and adds that definition to the existing reasons for deportability. The act also gives the attorney
general new power to detain “any person he certifies that he has reasonable grounds to believe”
 fits the descriptions provided in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Drafted and passed before the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security, the USA
 PATRIOT Act, which covers a number of areas, has several sections that deal with immigration.
 Among the chief provisions are the tripling of the border patrol on the U.S.–Canadian border;
INS and Department of State access to the FBI’s criminal record-keeping system for help in
determining visa issuance and entry questions; a requirement for a standardized technology that
can be used to verify the identity of foreign nationals seeking entry or visas; new grounds for denying
 or deporting persons “deemed to be representatives of foreign terrorist organizations or of any
group that publicly endorses terrorist acts”; and directing the INS to use “biometric identifiers”
(higher tech fingerprinting methods) and tamper-proof documents, and to implement fully the
Foreign Student Visa Monitoring Program (established under the 1996 revision of the immigration
 laws).
Several aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act have caused great concern among immigration lawyers
and civil rights groups. Chief among them is the power granted exclusively to the attorney general
 or the deputy attorney general to certify an alien as a terrorist if the attorney general or his deputy
 has “reasonable grounds to believe” that this alien is a terrorist or has committed an act of terrorism.
Once a person is so certified, detention is mandatory.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the act, causing the loudest protests, is the charge for
detaining aliens. Although the new law states that such a person must be released within seven
days if not charged with a violation, the charge need not be for an act of terrorism. It may be for
 a minor infraction of the immigration laws, and not even one related to the alleged terrorist act.
 If a violation is found, the suspect may be held for an unspecified length of time.
The Border Security Act, introduced in November 2001 and signed into law just days later, focuses
 on enhanced security measures while continuing to allow for the ongoing entry of people as well
as certain necessary or desirable goods and materials. To these ends, it authorizes money for
more INS and Customs Service staff, for upgrading their technology and for personnel training,
and raises certain fees to help offset the added expense.
The act has five other provisions. It calls for the sharing of information among several federal
agencies when resolving deportation issues and adds guidelines (with statutory deadlines)
regarding travel documents and the issuing of visas and passports, as well as new rules for
inspecting immigrants, such as requiring airlines and passenger ships to transmit lists of
 arriving passengers on their way to the United States. The act also covers the tracking of
foreign students  by requiring the schools they attend to certify that the students have in fact
enrolled and are continuing to attend. Finally, it mandates a study to determine the feasibility
 of annually monitoring nonimmigrants in the United States and developing a database to be
 shared with Canada and Mexico.
The two new laws aren’t the only governmental measures to have had an impact on immigration
practices and procedures. Under an executive regulation issued on October 29, 2001, the
 government has the power to detain an alien even after an immigration judge has ordered that
person’s release. According to the National Immigration Forum, a nonprofit group that promotes
immigration, “The new rule will allow the INS to continue to detain aliens held even for minor
immigration violations, and the detention may go on for months before the BIA [Board of Immigration
 Appeals] and, ultimately, the Attorney General make their decisions.”
In the month after September 11, the Department of Justice issued a number of new regulations
 (or reinterpretations of existing regulations) that soon proved to be highly controversial. They provide
 for the monitoring of attorney–client communications; interviews (on a “consensual” basis)
of Middle Eastern males between the ages of 18 and 33 who entered the United States after
 January 1, 2000,
 on nonimmigrant visas; S visas for persons who offer “relevant information” that will help catch
terrorists or stop terrorist attacks (opponents immediately began referring to them as “snitch” visas);
 and the detention of individuals in connection with the government’s ongoing investigation into the
 terrorist attacks of September 11 (an internal Justice Department memo outlined the procedure to
 be used in resisting Freedom of Information Act requests regarding the individuals being held).

Reactions Pro and Con
Although these actions on the part of government, in particular their unilateral nature, brought
complaints from such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Immigration
Lawyers Association (AILA), other groups applauded them. A few faulted the government for not
 going further. In the months since the passage of the new laws and the issuance of guidelines
and regulations, the opposing positions have, if anything, hardened.
“The government had a lot of power before,” says immigration lawyer Denyse Sabagh, a partner in
 Duane Morris, “but it has even more power now. There’s been a sea change since 9/11. The
 PATRIOT Act, which changed the balance, was the big piece. Next came the secret hearings
 authorized by  Judge Creppy’s memorandum.”
On September 21, 2001, Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy issued a memo stating, in part,
that “the Attorney General has implemented additional security procedures for certain cases in the
 Immigration Court [that] require Immigration Judges to close the hearing to the public. . . .”
Sabagh says, “When immigration lawyers began getting notices that said certain of their cases
were being conducted in secret, they said, What does this mean? No one understood it. There’s
 always been a right to close a hearing, but it’s usually the alien’s right. It wasn’t the judges who
 were doing it. What it came down to was the immigration judges saying to us, If we tell you
somebody’s on our list, then we close that hearing. The attorney general said they’re on the list,
 so it’s a secret proceeding.
“It was off the docket. They wouldn’t talk to you about it. And if you wanted to find out about it, even
 as a lawyer, you had to go in person.
“You went to court and looked to see if the case was on the list, and it wasn’t there, but when you
went into court, they’d clear the courtroom. The only people allowed in court were the judge, the
 trial attorney, and the client and his or her lawyer. And the feeling you got was that your client was
guilty until proven innocent.”
Michael Maggio, a senior partner with Maggio Kattar, P.C., has been an immigration lawyer since
1978. He says, “When it became part of Homeland Security, the former INS was split into two parts,
BCIS, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, and BTS, the directorate of Border and
Transportation Security. And the concern is that because of the current perception that immigration
 is all about the security of the homeland, BTS is going to get all the money, and BCIS, the benefits
section, is going to be short-changed.
“To process applications more quickly, there just has to be more money allocated. It’s that simple.
But in a time of a spiraling federal deficit and a demand for more spending in other areas, is more
 money going to go for the adjudication of immigration benefits? I doubt it.”
According to AILA, “Under the guise of combating terrorism, the new regulations and programs
initiated by the Administration have undermined law enforcement officials’ ability to perform their
duties, have done little to gather worthwhile intelligence, have granted the executive branch broad
 powers to act in secret, and have made it very difficult for foreign visitors to maintain their legal
status. These actions waste law enforcement’s valuable resources by focusing on people who
pose no threat to our national security, and they violate fundamental principles of our judicial
 system.”

Interested Parties
Supporters of the government’s actions say the statements of the immigration lawyers and
their organizations are wrong because they fail to understand the ongoing danger of the
 terrorist threat that was unleashed when the Pandora’s box of terrorism was opened on
September 11, 2001.
One of the leading proponents of limiting immigration is Mark Krikorian, executive director
 of the Center for Immigration Studies, which he describes as “a think tank which examines
 and critiques the impact of immigration on the United States. Generally speaking, we’re in
 favor of lower immigration levels and tougher immigration enforcement.”
Krikorian feels that though the new laws have somewhat strengthened the position of his
organization, “the changes are evolutionary, not revolutionary. Legislatively, there has been
some modest improvement in immigration enforcement, but nothing radical, no earth-shaking
change. Likewise many enforcement tools that Congress had mandated in 1996 and which
had languished in INS have been reemphasized and accelerated, such as the foreign student
tracking requirement that the universities waged a scorched-earth campaign to prevent—
and had 9/11 not happened,
Congress almost certainly would have repealed the requirement altogether.
“What has changed,” says Krikorian, “is the climate, the lens through which people view immigration
issues. And the security aspect of immigration law enforcement, which was never taken very seriously
 in the past, has now come to the fore. No one can ask after 9/11, How much harm could 26,000
 Pakistani illegal aliens do?

Those kinds of dismissive statements about immigration law are simply
 not plausible any longer.

“In regard to the southern border, there’s immigration anarchy on our border with Mexico. That,
along with the widespread corruption within Mexico itself, makes that border a potential security
problem. Just recently there was an account in the newspapers about FBI intelligence regarding
 al Qaeda terrorists cooperating with Mexican drug gangs to sneak into this country. Whether
or not there’s anything to that, it’s still a real problem. So the whole context in which immigration
 law enforcement is viewed has changed, and that will lead over time to tougher law enforcement.”

Krikorian believes that this has already begun. “The special registration program is, in effect, the
INS saying to nonimmigrants, visitors, from certain, specific countries that immigration law is back
in business. Being a visa overstayer is no longer something that we’re going to ignore. And the
 results have been quite dramatic.”

Those who differ with Krikorian on immigration policy readily agree that the results have been
dramatic, but they consider that a minus, not a plus. For example, in a December 23, 2002, letter
 to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Senators Ted Kennedy (D–MA) and Russell Feingold (D–WI)
 and Representative John Conyers Jr. (D–MI) urged him to suspend the program. “We have grave
doubts,” they wrote, “about whether [it] has struck the proper balance between securing our borders
on the one hand and respecting the civil liberties of foreign students, business people, and visitors
who come to our nation legally on the other.” Instead, the legislators felt, the program had become
 “a component of a second wave of roundups and detentions of Arab and Muslim males disguised
 as a perfunctory registration requirement.”

Their reference was to the news accounts of what had occurred in California when hundreds of
Middle Eastern males had shown up for what they thought was a simple registration only to find themselves arrested and jailed. They also cited the case of a 16-year-old boy who had “entered
 the country lawfully on a student visa [and] was separated from his pregnant mother, even though
 he is seeking permanent  residency to be able to join his mother, who is a permanent resident,
and stepfather, who is a U.S. citizen, in America.”
On January 9, 2003, Jeanne Butterfield, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers
Association, released a statement calling for repeal of the special registration program, which
she described as “fundamentally flawed” in both concept and implementation, claiming that the INS
has used the program to “detain people who are on the path to permanent residency” because they
fit a certain “national origin/racial/religious profil[e].”
AILA has been a frequent and vocal critic of the post–9/11 legislation and the Department of Justice
 memos since their promulgation. Butterfield’s colleague, Judith Golub, AILA’s director of advocacy,
 calls the new legislation and regulations “false solutions to real problems that don’t make us safer,
and make immigrant communities feel besieged.”
She mentions, as a prime example, “the secret order of the attorney general that FBI agents could
function as immigration officials. Issued December 18, it was not posted on either the FBI or the INS
 web site, and not in the Federal Register. It’s the order by which the AG delegated authority to the
 FBI to exercise the functions of immigration officers for the purpose of ‘investigating, determining
the location of, and apprehending any alien who is in the United States in violation of the Immigration
 and Nationality Act . . . or any other law or regulation relating to visas or the conditions of visas. . . .’
“But,” Golub adds, “FBI people don’t understand immigration law. And our further concern is with the
Department of Homeland Security, where there’s already a lack of coordination among its three
immigration bureaus, and now you have the FBI coming in.”

Golub worries that people are losing sight of the bigger picture because of the welter of details in
the various laws, orders, regulations, and memos. “All these little dots connected together merely
give the illusion of making us safer. In reality they do not make us safer. They just waste our resources.

“But immigration can contribute to making us safer. We did that with the Border Security Visa and
Entry Reform Act, which is based on two assumptions: one, that enhancing our intelligence capacity
 will make us safer, and two, that it’s best to keep the people out who mean to do us harm before
they come into the country. It was an intelligent bill, a bipartisan bill, and a fine example of how
immigration can make us safer—not these initiatives from the government which Congress largely
 hasn’t reviewed and which make communities feel besieged and foreign governments really angry
at us. We can’t have people hijacking the security issue just to get old agendas passed.”
Golub feels that one of the most unfortunate results of agenda-based legislation and directives
is the effect on immigrants, especially those hoping to become Americans. “If you’re living in a
 community and you witness, or are a victim of, a crime, are you going to want to present yourself
to law enforcement? Say you’re a battered woman. Even if you’re a legal permanent resident, do you
want to present yourself to law enforcement? I would have to think twice about that.”
As for the effect of all of this on the practice of immigration law, Golub thinks it has made an already
 challenging area of the law even more challenging. With the government “doing things by regulation
and by executive order, you have a rapidly changing environment with scared clients. And when you
 try to go to the INS—or whatever you want to call it now—to get an answer, either they don’t know the
 answer or they’ll try to pass the buck to another department. So the result is uncertainty, uncertainty,
 uncertainty.”

On the Hill
Representative Tom Tancredo (R–CO), while admitting that there have been individual cases of
unfairness, nonetheless believes that one has to use the measure of the greatest good for the
greatest number. And the way to do that, he says, is to limit immigration. For years Tancredo,
current chair of the House caucus on immigration reform, has regularly introduced a bill calling
for a moratorium on immigration.
“I don’t think the culture of immigration law has changed all that much,” he says, “but I do hear,
from immigration lawyers, that it has. They say it’s harder to get green cards” (which at the moment
happen to be pink) “harder to get people in the country through visas, and that sort of thing.
“But that’s not the side of the question I pay much attention to. I pay a lot more attention to how easy
 it is to get into the country illegally. That hasn’t changed at all. So if you ask if the problem of whether
 or not someone can come into this country for the purpose of doing us great harm has been alleviated
 to any extent as a result of post–9/11 legislation, I’d say no.”
Tancredo feels that even if America does make it harder to cross its borders, terrorists will always
 find a way to enter, legally or illegally. Thus his preference to close the borders tight. This idea is not
 one favored by President Bush, who is on record in favor of legalizing many workers who are now
here illegally, especially those of Mexican origin. Tancredo says this opposition from the top of his
own party does not bother him, and neither does the fact that many immigration lawyers call him anti-
immigration.

“I find that when people run out of intellectual arguments on this issue,” he says, “they resort to using
terms like racist, xenophobic, and the like, and saying one is anti-immigration is but another aspect
of that. It’s intended to shut down debate, and to marginalize the person on the other side so you don’t
have to debate the merits of the argument. But that accusation is simply untrue.
“Look, you can care mightily about the issue of immigration and not be anti-immigration.

 You can press for immigration reform and not be anti-immigration. I think there is no greater
domestic policy problem in the United States. It has more implications than anything else I
can think of for the future of the country, because not only will it determine the kind of a country
 we are, it will determine if we are going to be a country at all. And if you believe that, as I do,
then you will work hard to accomplish the goal of immigration reform. And it’s got nothing to
do with countries of origin, or ethnicity, or any of that.

It’s a much more complicated issue, and much more challenging.”

As for the current state of immigration reform in the U.S. House of Representatives, Tancredo feels
 that his group has enough votes “to stop the agenda of the open-borders group, but that’s about it.
 I don’t think we have enough to push our own agenda, but we have made great progress in our
 ability to stop theirs. What 9/11 did was to give a lot of people the guts to say we need to do
something about our borders.
“In trying to get any immigration reform measure passed, I have three main problems: one, the
Democratic party, which sees massive immigration as something that will replenish their pool
 of Democratic voters; two, the Republican party, which sees massive immigration as a source of
cheap labor; and three, the president, who sees this whole thing as a wedge issue in the next election,
 and because he doesn’t want to be counting chads for a long time, he sees the Hispanic vote as a
way to do so. As soon as I have those three problems dealt with, I’ll have this thing solved.”
Tancredo says he is unmoved by the fact that his position on immigration has made him persona non
grata at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: “Because of this issue, Mr. Carl Rove once told me that I
should never darken the doorstep of the White House again. And to say he has some control over
 that doorstep is very much of an understatement—he has the key, the mat, and the welcome money!”


Think Tank Perspective
A month after Tancredo introduced his immigration moratorium in the wake of 9/11, Daniel Griswold,
 associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, wrote, “In a recent
speech to the House that included a litany of complaints about the economic and cultural impact of
 immigration, Tancredo said, ‘Mr. Speaker, my God, what does it take? . . . How many people in this
 country have to lose their lives before we come to the understanding that defense of the nation begins
 at the defense of our borders?’ As the former president of a think tank, Tancredo should know better:
‘Defending our borders’ and drastically cutting immigration are two different propositions. The problem
 is not that we are letting too many people in but that the government is not effectively keeping the
wrong people out.”
Griswold believes that immigrants represent but “a small subset” of all the foreigners who enter the
 United States each year. “Only about one out of every 20 foreign nationals comes here to immigrate.
 The rest are business travelers, tourists arriving for ski holidays, Canadians and Mexicans crossing
 into border states for the weekend or to shop or visit families, and,” he adds, getting in a dig at
Tancredo, “students attending Colorado universities. The 19 terrorists who hijacked those planes
 did not apply to immigrate or to become U.S. citizens. Like most aliens who enter the United States,
they were here on temporary visas.
“It’s disingenuous of Tancredo to aim his moratorium at the small share of aliens entering the
United States who want to immigrate when terrorists are far more likely to enter through the much
 broader gates open for tourists and other visitors. We could reduce immigration to zero and still
 not stop terrorists from slipping into the country on temporary, nonimmigrant visas.”
Rather than closing the borders, Griswold would prefer to see greater efforts to keep potentially
dangerous people from entering, and to that end he calls for increased cooperation among law
enforcement and intelligence agencies and
 the Department of State, especially information sharing.
“Computer systems must be upgraded and new technologies adopted to screen out the bad guys
 without causing intolerable delays at the border.” (For the record, Tancredo told Washington Lawyer
 he favors the same approach.) “We need even more cooperation from Mexico and Canada,
” says Griswold, “to prevent potential terrorists from slipping across our long land borders into the
 United States. Just as importantly, America’s border control system requires a reorientation of
mission. U.S. immigration policy up until now has been obsessed with nabbing mostly Mexican-born
workers whose only ‘crime’ is their desire to work, save, and build a better life for their families.

Those workers pose no threat to national security. Instead of expending scarce resources to hunt
down construction  workers and raid restaurants, our border control efforts should focus on tracking
potential terrorists and smashing their cells before they can blow up more buildings and kill more
Americans.”

Michael Maggio offers an example of what Griswold is talking about. “We’re doing a case right
 now for a Lebanese businessman, a highly educated man who’s working with an American, a retired
professional athlete, in a project that would bring big bucks from the Middle East to invest in Florida
real estate. Two years ago it would have been easily approved, but it was denied, and we think the
reason was that if you are the immigration official who approves this man and he does something bad,
 your career is ruined. Nobody was ever fired or had his career put on hold or was held up to public
ridicule for denying a case. So why put your neck out for someone? . . . nobody wants to take the risk.”

José Pertierra, like Maggio, has been an immigration lawyer for two decades. With a wide-ranging
client list that extends from Elián Gonzalez to ambassadors, Pertierra has had a front-row seat for the
 changes that have transpired since 9/11.

“Actually, it’s not so much the laws that have been passed by Congress as it is the decisions that have
been made and positions that have been taken by Attorney General Ashcroft,” he says. “Because he
was dissatisfied with many of the pro-immigrant decisions of the BIA, the Board of Immigration
Appeals, he did two things. First, he had five of the judges dismissed, and not on the basis of seniority;
curiously enough, they were the five most pro-immigrant judges on the Board of Appeals. Secondly,
having streamlined the board, in an effort to speed up the cases he allowed judges at the BIA level
 to issue decisions without comment, summary decisions. These actions changed the rules of the game
 for the BIA.
“The problem for practitioners is that you may have a complicated case with very complicated issues
 and you have no idea why the board ruled as it did, and thus if you want to appeal that decision
 to the federal courts, you have no guidance. The result is a lot more nos by the BIA . . . and faster
decisions, which is what the attorney general wanted. Not exactly fair decisions, just faster denials.
And he could do that because that department is still within the Department of Justice, not in
Homeland Security.

“The other thing that has immigration lawyers so concerned is secret evidence. By that I mean once
 the AG has certified someone as a terrorist, if the immigration judge decides that some piece
of evidence is national security sensitive, then he can declare it secret, and unless the immigration
lawyer has a national security clearance, then he or she can’t see it. And the only case I’ve heard
about in which the lawyer was allowed to see secret evidence was one in which the immigration
lawyer was a former head of the CIA!”
Given all the activity, both legislative and administrative, in response to the attacks of September
11, can it be said that there is a new American immigration policy? Griswold believes the general
answer is no, but yes in regard to immigrants from certain countries. “We’re admitting dramatically
 fewer refugees than we did just a few years ago, and fewer than Congress and the administration
agreed upon—only 27,000 refugees this year, even though the target amount was 70,000. Also,
depending on the country of origin, it is somewhat more difficult for people from a number of Muslim-
majority countries to get temporary visas to enter the United States. As a consequence, the number
of visitors from several countries, including Pakistan, has dropped quite significantly.
“The case where the law has changed significantly is in government’s monitoring of people in the
 United States from Muslim-majority countries. Requiring them to register, requiring them to
be fingerprinted, and as a consequence several thousand people who might have gone on living
quietly and illegally in the United States are being deported or leaving on their own.”
Griswold says that when one applies the standard of the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto,
that laws governing immigration must be “compatible with how people actually arrange their lives,
” the United States’ immigration laws “absolutely” fail the test. “That is the reason why we have so
many undocumented workers in the United States, because our immigration law is fundamentally
at odds with the economic and social realities of the United States. My recommendation is that
 instead of that tremendous cost in trying to deport millions of people and continuing to throw good
 money after bad in a losing effort to close our borders, we recognize reality and create a legal
channel for peaceful, hardworking people to enter the United States to help build a stronger economy.”

Griswold believes that policing the border in the manner favored
by Tom Tancredo and Mark Krikorian could be done, “but only at
 tremendous cost, and in a way that would fundamentally change
what America is about. You’d be talking about a three-tiered replica
of the Berlin Wall covering hundreds of miles and requiring tens
of thousands of agents at the border, a militarization of our borders
with our second largest trading partner. That would be an
unacceptable cost for a dubious policy goal.

“Drastically reducing the number of foreigners who enter the United States each year would only
 compound the economic damage of September 11 while doing nothing to enhance our security.
Whole sectors of the U.S. economy depend on foreign-born workers, high- and low-skilled alike,
from Silicon Valley and Wall Street to hotels, restaurants, construction sites, and farms. The tourist
industry, already reeling, would lose millions of foreign visitors and American universities would
 lose hundreds of thousands of foreign students if our borders were closed. We should post a
 yield sign on the Statue of Liberty, but never a stop sign.”

The Border Road Ahead
The government is faced with the difficult task of trying to balance atop a fence that separates
two fiercely opposing camps. According to BCIS spokesperson Dan Kane, “The tragic events
of September 11 made clear that those seeking to tear us down will try to take advantage of our
 immigration system, and we are intent on stopping them. At the same time, however, we must
 keep the welcome mat out for those who come legally to join us in building up our nation.”
True, says former INS general counsel Paul Virtue, now a partner at Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.,
but that’s not going to be easy. “While I certainly agree that the government needs to strike a
balance between facilitating entry and ensuring security, the government’s current inability to
apply the necessary human and technological resources has caused an imbalance between
facilitating trade and commerce and admitting visitors to the United States. That imbalance
 needs to be addressed rather quickly, or it will have a negative economic effect in terms of
 the United States and global trade.”

Finally, there’s also the question of race, an issue that not everyone
is comfortable talking about. José Pertierra, however, does not
hesitate. “Some of the anti-immigration people come out of the old
zero-population-growth movement, but let’s face it, there are anti-
immigration folks out there who have never met a brown face they
liked, and that was true of them before 9/11. Now, in its wake, to
them every brown face is a terrorist.”

That the issue of immigration policy in post–9/11 America remains volatile was dramatically
underscored on June 17 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
 ruled the Department of Justice did not have to release the names of any of the 700-plus
people detained on immigration law violations after September 11. The sharply divided court
ruled 2–1 that the government was correct in its contention that to disclose the names could
aid al Qaeda in its efforts to learn the antiterrorism methods of the American government.
In his opinion Judge David Sentelle wrote, “America faces an enemy just as real as its former
cold war foes,” adding, “it is abundantly clear that the government’s top counter-terrorism officials
 are well suited to make this predictive judgment. Conversely, the judiciary is in an extremely
poor position to second-guess” the government in matters of national security. Judge Sentelle
concluded, “While the name of any individual detainee may appear innocuous or trivial, it could
 be of great use to al Qaeda in plotting future terrorist attacks or in intimidating witnesses in the
present investigation.
” He was joined in his opinion by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson.
In a sharply worded dissent that at 25 pages was almost as long as Sentelle’s majority opinion,
Judge David Tatel (who, unlike Judges Sentelle and Henderson, was appointed by a Democratic
 president)  wrote that the majority had, in effect, said yes to the Bush administration’s request to
 “simply trust its judgment.” He labeled the government’s assertion “vague, poorly explained
 arguments,” and said that by “filling in the gaps in the government’s case with its own assumptions
 about facts absent from the record, this court has converted deference into acquiescence.”

Attorney General John Ashcroft, however, was quite pleased with the decision not to reveal the
detainees’ names. He released a statement that said, in part, “The Justice Department is working
 diligently to prevent another catastrophic attack on America. We are pleased the court agreed we
should not give terrorists a virtual road map to our investigation that could allow terrorists to chart
a potentially deadly detour around our efforts.”
Further indication, if any is needed, that the contretemps between open arms and armed guards
at the borders is going to be around for quite some time is the fact that there is no unanimity in the
 decisions of the courts that have already ruled on the legality of the government’s secrecy policy.
When a court in New Jersey ordered that the names of hundreds of terrorism suspects being held
 in jail be released, it was rather quickly reversed on appeal; two federal judges in neighboring
New York issued conflicting rulings over the issue of whether or not the government can use the
material witness statute to hold terrorism suspects; and diametrically opposed decisions as to
whether or not the government can close the immigration hearings of specially designated
terrorism suspects were handed down in Third and Sixth Circuit cases.

Like the fear of terrorism itself, these are not issues that will fade away any time soon.

John Greenya is a Washington-based writer.


The District of Columbia Bar | 1250 H Street NW, sixth floor | Washington DC 20005-5937 |
 202-737-4700 | Directions/Parking Privacy Policy | Disclaimer
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ©COPYRIGHT 2004 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR.

Disclaimer
The information in this Web site is presented by the D.C. Bar as a service to its members and
 the public. Although the Bar attempts to keep this information current and accurate, it makes
no warranty or guarantee that it is correct, complete, or up-to-date. You should not rely upon or construe the information in this Web site as legal advice, and you should not act or fail to act
 based upon the information in this Web site without seeking professional counsel.

This Web site may contain links or be linked to other Web sites not maintained by the D.C. Bar.
The D.C. Bar makes no representations, express or implied, with respect to the materials and information provided on any third-party Web site linked to this Web site, including any representations as to the accuracy, timeliness, reliability, or completeness of any material or information on such linked site. Inclusion of a link in this Web site to another Web site does
not imply recommendation, approval, or endorsement by the D.C. Bar of the linked site.

Stephanie Mills and zero population growth 8/22/02. ... later, the author and activist
is widely regarded as one of the environmental movement's leading intellects. ...


 Immigrants Quickly Becoming Assimilated, Report Concludes
Millions buy homes, learn English and marry outside group



Los Angeles -- The largest group of immigrants to the United States since the beginning
 of the century is embracing the nation's lifestyle by the millions -- buying homes, speaking
 English, becoming citizens and intermarrying at surprisingly high rates, according to a new
 study of national census data.

Commentators brought together by the report's sponsors yesterday in Los Angeles called
 the conclusions consistent with  the ethnic transformation of Southern California.

The study's upbeat conclusions are encapsulated in its title, ``From Newcomers to New
Americans: The Successful Integration of Immigrants Into American Society.'' It was
commissioned by the National Immigration Forum, the leading pro-immigration advocacy
group in Washington, D.C.

Opponents of current immigration levels, however, said the study was biased and ignored
 indications that the nation is fracturing along ethnic and social lines.

The study found that immigrants -- mostly from Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean --
are adjusting to life in the United States in much the same way as newcomers from Europe
 did earlier in the century.

Relying on U.S. census data, the study focuses on four measures of assimilation: citizenship,
 home ownership, English acquisition and intermarriage. All were found to be on the rise
 among immigrants and their children. ``Contemporary immigrants overwhelmingly do what
newcomers have always done: slowly, often painfully, but quite assuredly, embrace the
language, cultural norms and loyalties of America,'' said Gregory Rodriguez, the study's
author and a research scholar at Pepperdine University's Institute for Public Policy.

More than three-quarters of immigrants spoke English proficiently within 10 years of arrival,
 the study found, and more than 60 percent owned their homes within 20 years. By the third
 generation -- the grandchildren of immigrants -- one-third of Latinas had married non-Latinos,
while 41 percent of Asian-American women had non-Asian spouses.
In the past quarter-century, more than 7 million immigrants have become U.S. citizens, by far the
most oaths administered during any 25- year period, officials say.
The study argues that the vibrant, polyglot immigrant life of places such as Southern California
 should not be interpreted as a rejection of U.S. culture. Assimilation has historically been
 gradual, experts say.
Opponents of high immigration called the report a selective snapshot that ignored evidence of
 ethnic balkanization and said it simplified the assimilation process in an effort to build
congressional support for expanded entry quotas and amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.
``Assimilation is not a question of having a job or knowing the lyrics to Madonna's songs,'' said
 Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which seeks to
 reduce the number of new arrivals.
Today, with burgeoning numbers of low-skilled, ill-educated immigrants, some predict the
formation of a permanent underclass, with high welfare dependence, rather than an assimilated
middle class. ``There's no evidence that most of today's immigrants have the skill sets suited for
 a postindustrial information-age, superpower economy,'' said Dan Stein, executive director
of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national group seeking to limit immigration.

What policymakers must do, say Stein and others, is declare a ``timeout'' in the number
of new entries, allowing time for today's immigrants and their children to join society properly.