Immigrant Rights Under the Knife of National Security
By Susan Alva

Since September 11, draconian immigration enforcement policies and new legislative proposals have come at us almost nonstop. The impacts may take years to fully realize, but they present us with a sobering reality. While the brunt has been borne by Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians, the emerging 9/11 enforcement laws and policies also target the broader immigrant community.

The “Alien Absconder Initiative” gives local law enforcement agencies access to the names of 314,000 immigrants who allegedly have orders for deportation or removal. INS will be inputting their names into the National Crime and Information Center database, which subjects them to immigration enforcement during routine traffic stops. Putting aside INS’ notorious record-keeping and the possibility that many of these immigrants may have a legal defense against deportation, local police and sheriffs along with INS are already detaining and deporting persons considered “absconders.”

The “absconder” initiative was launched targeting some 6,000 people from countries with “active al Qaeda” networks; special teams have been created to pursue them. In its second phase, the Initiative will go after the remaining 308,000 people of all nationalities. Making matters worse, the anticipated Department of Justice’s legal opinion that local law enforcement agencies have “inherent authority” to enforce civil immigration laws would vastly increase police powers and abuse. Additionally, a little-noticed proposed regulation would permanently bar from re-entry anyone who fails to depart within 30 days of a deportation or removal order. Moreover, all permanent residents seeking to renew or replace their green cards must now undergo extensive background checks.

The Board of Immigration Appeals, which reviews immigration cases, deportation orders, and denials of asylum, is also facing far-reaching changes. The changes include a significant reduction in the number of BIA members. Then DOJ plans to eliminate the 50,000 cases in backlog within six months – with fewer immigration judges. The Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition calculates this would give each case 15 minutes! Other proposals include a reversal of a review process which increased the Board’s productivity by 50% and time limits for deciding cases, a concept which has not been as enthusiastically proposed for the processing of adjustment of status, waiver or naturalization applications.

These emerging policies show the government’s use of “national security” rationales, making communities vulnerable to broader, more pervasive enforcement practices and abuses. The proposal to move the INS into a new “Homeland Security” department puts these changes in daunting perspective. Opposition to this proposal has been almost non-existent, perhaps due to the numbness inflicted by the onslaught of attacks or not being able to tackle the deluge of proposals. Most advocates inside the beltway, having concluded that opposing INS inclusion in Homeland Security is a losing battle, are focusing on fine-tuning that inclusion. Ironically, it took a former INS official and the Republican leadership to clearly and forcefully object to the inclusion. This latest affront, as well as our responses, starkly exemplifies the challenges facing immigrant communities.

Susan Alva is the Director of the Immigration and Citizenship Project of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.