[Dryerase] Alarm!--Eye on the INS

[The Alarm!Newswire]

Eye on the INS
It’s been 1 year—it’s been 50 years
 
By Michelle Stewart
The Alarm! Newspaper Collective

It is entirely discouraging to look back over the past year from the 
position of immigration and immigrants’ rights. In the wake of the 9/11 
event, many rights of noncitizens in the US were stripped, and in turn, 
the rights of those entering the US were reduced. In the past year, we 
have seen the Department of Justice explicitly state the need to 
racially profile visitors and immigrants entering and those in the US, 
as well as those already here. We have seen over 1,000 people detained 
in the name of the War on Terrorism. Many of these detainees vanished 
without a trace until their release. Many are still detained, with 
their names withheld from the public. We have to ask ourselves: do the 
ends justify the means, or for that matter what are the ends?

It would be a rather tedious expedition to set out and systematically 
refer to each moment the INS/Department of Justice took aim at 
immigrants’ rights in the past year. It would simply show good research 
skills. All of that information is out on the web and at your 
fingertips if you want it. In drafting a year in review since 9/11, I 
am stumped on what to say, for indeed there is too much to say.

We cannot forget that while immigrants’ rights have been squashed over 
the last year during the 9/11 crackdowns, programs like Operation 
Gatekeeper prove that the INS’s failures don’t begin and end with 9/11.

The INS is being restructured: it is losing its latest director, it is 
being separated into two agencies and it is bolstered financially by an 
increased attention to border security. Many things can slip through 
the cracks of scrutiny when looking at this aging behemoth of an agency 
that dwells both in flawed policy and dated understandings of 
geopolitics. So, what then of the last year? What is the thing to focus 
on?

It would be simple to compare the current detainments of noncitizens 
with the WWII detainment and relocation of Japanese, Italian and German 
immigrants. The parallels are rather apparent. We need to recognize 
that the larger catastrophe is that the lesson of history has not kept 
us from repeating our earlier mistake(s).

Better technology allowed the government to seize up the last wave of 
detainees with relative secrecy. These detainees will not be released 
to find themselves landless, homeless or otherwise robbed by their 
opportunistic neighbors. Unfortunately, many of these recently detained 
face deportation for minor immigration infractions or assumed 
associations. So, the newer version of the ethnic target-and-detain 
game is, perhaps, more bittersweet. But if it is appropriate to 
compare, what purpose does that serve?

It’s hard to look back on the last year and not be cynical. Those with 
an ear on INS policy and practice have become deafened by stories of 
families being torn apart. Of mothers being called in for “interviews,” 
and, assuming their citizenship is coming up, they attend and are 
deported after being torn from their children’s arms. Their children 
are US citizens born in this country, their husbands are US citizens 
sponsoring their application, they are noncitizens who made a mistake 
on their forms or filings. They are deported and restricted from 
re-entry for five to ten years. How many of these stories need to be 
told-—when a single one should be enough to illustrate a flaw in the 
system?

Our collective fear of another tower crumbling, of another day like 
September 11, 2001 has allowed us to wonder if the ends justify the 
means. Is it worth it for one mother to be deported in favor of 
stricter laws to keep terrorists out? I am afraid to answer that the 
laws are not going to guarantee we avoid another 9/11. The INS cannot 
safeguard the continental US period—why do we continue to permit the 
INS to strip the rights of others for an unattainable goal? At the end 
of the day, the alleged hijackers entered legally, and received 
clearance for training some eight months after the attack.

Nearly every other week the INS, the Department of Justice or the 
Office of Homeland Security makes yet another statement that should 
shock our sensibilities. Instead, there is a small response that says, 
“No, ethnic profiling is wrong.” These small voices are largely drowned 
out by a complacent general public that begins to wonder if it’s ‘OK’ 
to racially profile all men ages 18-35 from predominantly Muslim 
countries. How could that be OK? Is it just easier to assume that 
everyone of Middle-Eastern descent is a possible enemy than it is to 
lead a targeted investigation? I guess it is, especially when the 
general public does not rise up and speak out.

The level of ethnic animosity is being covered up, as hate crimes 
against people of Arab descent (or apparent Arab descent) continue to 
occur, as the government targets young men who are visiting the US, as 
the government seizes the funds of aid agencies associated with the 
Afghan region, etc., etc. A year has passed and we are not out of the 
woods.

When the WTC was car-bombed in 1993,the stage was set for immigration 
reform. One of the results was the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. At the time, this sweeping 
legislation took immigrants (and immigration lawyers) by storm, 
stripping rights, increasing penalties and generally raising the stakes 
for those seeking to immigrate. Although these laws were confusing and 
often contradictory, they were at least explicitly on the books, giving 
people time to respond and strategize their actions.

In the current INS environment, the ideas of yesterday are policy 
today, and you must have a finger on the pulse of the agency to keep up 
with the rate of change. The current environment slaps down the maximum 
penalty for each rather modest infraction. From change of address forms 
to assumed associations, today’s immigrant needs to devote time each 
week to keeping up with the INS.

Thus comes one of the most obvious and least talked about problems with 
the INS. There is no system of dissemination. The INS disseminates 
through the media. But who has the time to read the paper each and 
every day to see what is changing in one agency, and, in turn, who 
guarantees that each newspaper will cover every change at the INS? We 
live in a world that guarantees nothing but death and taxes, yet we can 
penalize someone who did not respond to the information they were not 
given?

Today’s immigrant is expected to know every law that applies to their 
status, yet there isn’t a centralized means to gather all of that 
information and distribute it. Until we solve this basic problem we 
will continue to read stories that make our heads ache with anger. But 
this leads to a false conclusion that a better bureaucracy will make 
for better immigration politics and policy. This is not the case.

Last year, the Twin Towers were hit, over 1,000 people were placed in 
detention (their names were withheld), there is talk of the INS 
building larger detainment centers, the agency is receiving a larger 
budget and continuing to revise its rules and guidelines for students 
and visitors entering the US. That is the sound-bite overview of the 
last year.

A more personal note might read: last year when the Twin Towers 
crumbled, dozens or perhaps hundreds of undocumented workers died and 
they will not receive federal funds for their families and their names 
are not mentioned as “victims;” in the first six months of 2002, 167 
immigrants died trying to enter the US, 117 of whom were Mexican; on an 
average day the INS is detaining 16,000 people, and by the end of 2002 
it is estimated they will be detaining 23,000 people, with an annual 
budget of $1 billion dollars devoted to detention and detainment.

In short, the last year has been dismal, with little immediate hope for 
recovery. So long as the US general public is complacent in these 
matters, people will continue to be held in detention, killed in the 
desert and subject to scrutiny and persecution based solely on their 
perceived ethnicity.

The whole of the Muslim world did not attack the US on 9/11/01, just as 
each person from another country should not be subjected to possible 
death for entering the US “illegally.” We need to stop and take notice 
of these laws we support through political apathy.

The government efficiently has many members of the public swept up in 
its endless game of crying wolf at every country, every person, and all 
things Muslim. And if that is not offensive enough it is setting its 
sights on larger and larger targets.

For the past year we have weathered the storm of paranoia and confusion 
following 9/11, many of the ill-deeds cannot be undone and will not be 
forgotten. That does not mean we need to remain complacent. The second 
year of the War on Terrorism is upon us—perhaps one year was enough, 
and the time has come to reinstate rather than further strip people of 
their rights.

We cannot apply Machiavellian theory to the rights of immigrants and 
visitors in this country. The simplest of reasons is that we are unsure 
of what the “ends” truly are in this high stakes game of cat-and-mouse 
dubbed the War on Terrorism.

Endnote:  Carlos Armenta will continue with the second part of his 
series on the Five Myths of Immigration in the next issue of the paper. 
Each week the paper plans to present both Michelle Stewart and Carlos 
Armenta’s views on immigration policy and practice in facing columns. 
Your comments are welcomed at michelle at the-alarm.com
 
    All content Copyleft © 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where 
noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in 
whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or 
by government agencies.

-----
The Alarm! Newspaper
a local weekly newspaper for an engaged populace

http://www.the-alarm.com/
info at the-alarm.com
P.O. Box 1205, Santa Cruz, CA 95061
(831) 429-NEWS - office
(831) 420-1498 - fax