Race Matters

SB1070 for Muslims (NSEERS) Lands DREAM Act Youth Behind Bars, Deportation Looming

2012-01-04T12:27:00.001-05:00

January 4, 2012
(Originally Posted http://prernalal.com)

SB1070 for Muslims (NSEERS) Lands DREAM Act Youth Behind Bars, Deportation Looming

Earlier this year, the Obama Administration terminated NSEERS, a post-9-11 program that targeted and placed non-citizen Muslim men from over 24 countries in deportation proceedings. But the termination provides no relief for thousands of immigrants who face deportation as a result of the program. Hadi Zayed Zaidi, a Pakistani-American who was brought here at the age of 4, is one such immigrant who was registered with the NSEERS program when he was just 16 — a minor. Two weeks ago, ICE agents raided Hadi’s home and took him into custody. He has been detained ever since and faces separation from his legal permanent resident parents as he awaits imminent deportation to Pakistan. Please take immediate action to stop Hadi’s deportation to a country he hasn’t been to since he was 4 years old.

Shortly after 9-11, the Department of Homeland Security engaged in one of the most egregious cases of racial profiling in recent history. It established the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program, requiring male visa-holders over the age of 16 from predominantly Arab and Muslim countries to register with local immigration offices. Around 84,000 Arabs and Muslim men registered voluntarily and over 14,000 of them were deported for complying with the program. 1,200 were arbitrarily detained without due process. Terminated in April of this year, the program did not result in a single terrorism charge or conviction! But the termination does nothing to address the plight of thousands of men who complied with registration and are now fighting deportation proceedings.

Hadi Syed Zaidi is one of the many thousands who complied with the law and is now facing deportation from the United States. Hadi registered with the NSEERS program before the February 2003 deadline when he was barely 16. Within a few months, he was placed in deportation proceedings, along with his older brother and father. The family battled tenuously and his dad finally gained a green card last year. But Hadi and his older brother were separated from their father’s case and left without any immediate way to gain legal status. Their application for cancellation of removal was denied due to lack of a qualifying relative and they were ordered deported from the United States, condemned to living without their legal resident parents in a country that is foreign to them.

When the Obama Administration decided to scale back the NSEERS program that got Hadi and his family into this nightmarish quagmire, it should have come with reprieve from deportation for everyone ensnared by the program. However, instead of exercising prosecutorial discretion and granting a reprieve from deportation, ICE agents raided the Zaidi family home two weeks ago and took Hadi into custody. Hadi is now detained at the Mira Loma Detention Center in Lancaster, California and could be deported at any time. When his family tried to post bail for his release, officials at the detention center informed them that since Hadi was Pakistani-born, there was no bail for him. So much for living in a post-racial America.

In the interim, their lawyer has filed an emergency stay of removal for Hadi, and petitioned to reopen the case since Hadi can now use his Dad as a qualifying relative for cancellation of removal. But we need to get Hadi out of detention before he is deported. Please take action to help Hadi today.

Despite facing the prospect of removal from his home for the entirety of his adult life, Hadi is an accomplished young man with much to contribute to the United States. He was an honors student throughout high school and won numerous scholarships, making his family and community proud of him. Before he was detained for imminent deportation to Pakistan, Hadi was taking classes at West Los Angeles Community College and he hoped to transfer to a four-year university to gain a degree in either Industrial Design or Applied Mathematics. If deported to Pakistan, Hadi — who does not speak any Urdu — faces life in a country that is foreign to him and likely to treat him with hostility because he is an American.

Hadi is DREAM Act eligible and meets most of the factors listed in the Morton memo, which should merit a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. He is neither a criminal nor a public safety concern. He has lived in the United States for more than 20 years. He is pursuing higher education and aspires to get a four-year degree. His grandmother is a U.S. citizen and his parents are legal permanent residents. He has no ties to Pakistan. Hadi has proven to be an American in every way and deserves the opportunity to continue with his studies and give back to the only country he calls home.

It is unclear what the Obama Administration stands to gain from deporting Hadi from the United States, besides contributing to the collective trauma, pain and suffering of so many Arab and Muslim-Americans who have been similarly discriminated against and deported in the recent past.
This holiday season, take action to help Hadi and tell the Obama Administration to finally end this deportation nightmare.

Canceling Stay, U.S. Orders 72 Indonesians in New Jersey to Leave

2011-12-16T15:56:00.001-05:00

December 15, 2011
(Originally Posted in The New York Times December 6, 2011)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/nyregion/us-tells-72-indonesians-in-new-jersey-to-leave.html?_r=2

Prosecutorial Discretion and Post 9/11 by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia

2011-12-16T15:43:00.001-05:00

December 15, 2011
(Originally Published on December 8, 2011)

On December 6, the New York Times reported about the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to furnish some 72 Indonesians living in New Jersey with one-way plane tickets to Indonesia, cancelling supervision orders they had been previously issued by DHS. “Prosecutorial discretion” refers to law enforcement’s authority to decide whether or not to impose the laws against a party, and DHS’s decision to cancel the supervision orders reflects one form of this discretion. For more than thirty years, the immigration agency has utilized prosecutorial discretion to balance its finite resources and also recognize the compelling humanitarian issues faced by certain noncitizens living in the United States. DHS’ decision to deport these Indonesians despite a long-time residence, family and professional ties in the United States and no criminal histories is puzzling and inconsistent with the DHS’ own policy. Some of the Indonesians facing deportation entered the United States on valid visas and registered under a controversial post 9/11 program (Download NSEERSexamples) known as “special registration” or the “National Security Entry and Exit Registration System” (NSEERS). The NSEERS program was created in the wake of 9/11 and designed to find future terrorists by interrogating, fingerprinting and photographing certain foreign nationals admitted into the United States on temporary visas. The NSEERS program was expanded to reach certain visa holders in the United States who were men of certain ages and from a list of 25 Muslim-majority countries (including Indonesia) designated by the government—the program was controversial because it targeted people based on characteristics Americans would ordinarily consider unacceptable (nationality, sex and religion) and was implemented without proper resources or safeguards. In exchange for their compliance with the NSEERS program, thousands of registrants were detained, denied access to a lawyer and/or served with charging papers for a deportation hearing. Recognizing the program’s harsh human consequences and minimal national security benefit (terrorists do not voluntarily report themselves to the government), the DHS suspended portions of the NSEERs program in 2003 and this past April, published a rule that effectively terminated the program for nationals and citizens categorically subject to NSEERS. As illustrated by the story of the Indonesian community in New Jersey, the NSEERs program continues to affect many families who have lived in the United States for now more than 10 years, been gainfully employed, built families and/or contributed in meaningful ways to the United States. Without a full repeal of the NSEERS program and formal relief for those unjustly targeted it is critical that DHS exercise prosecutorial discretion favorably towards those affected by NSEERS.

Immigration Law Expert Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia Welcomes NSEERS Policy Change

2011-12-16T15:30:00.002-05:00

December 15, 2011

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, a clinical professor and director of Penn State's Center for Immigrants' Rights has worked with advocacy groups to demonstrate the "discriminatory and duplicative" natue of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). The Deparment of Homeland Security announced that it will suspend the policy which is welcome news to Professor Wadhia. Produced in collaboration with the American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee, the Center developed a report, "NSEERS: The Consequences of Efforts to Secure Its Borders," which provided the most comprehensive overview of the program and analyzed how NSEERS cases were handled in courts throughout the country. It also chronicled the real impact of NSEERS on the Arab, Muslim, and South Asian communities and their respective American families and proposed recommendations, most notably the termination of NSEERS by DHS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMIut-HsADY

9/11 Registration and the Morton Memo by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia

2011-07-19T10:31:00.000-04:00

9/11 Registration and the Morton Memo by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia

On June 17, 2011, Immigration Enforcement chief Head John Morton issued an important policy memo on the use of prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters. Prosecutorial discretion authorizes immigration officers and attorneys to channel their limited enforcement resources towards the most dangerous, while placing sympathetic cases involving individuals with favorable qualities like full-time fathers, serious medical conditions, long-time employees and students with strong ties to the U.S. on hold. The use of prosecutorial discretion dates back to the 1970s, but Morton’s new memo is significant because it affirms the equities agents should consider in its discretion, empowers ICE attorneys to drop charges in low priority cases, and encourages ICE to consider prosecutorial discretion without waiting for an attorney to file a request.

So what does the Morton Memo mean for the Muslim men and boys caught up in the 9/11 dragnet called special registration? Shortly after 9/11, former Attorney General Ashcroft announced and later regulated a special registration program in which individuals were fingerprinted, photographed and interrogated by local immigration officers at airports and local immigration offices. The program was controversial from the start by attempting to find potential terrorists by religious and nationality-based profiling. The program was also riddled with other due process concerns ranging from the lack of notice (who reads the Federal Register with their breakfast?), hurdles for lawyers denied access to these registrations, and overbroad criminal and immigration consequences for non-compliance. Controversy turned to chaos as thousands of men who voluntary reported were detained, served deportation papers and removed in exchange for their compliance. Ironically, the agency’s decision to place 13,000-plus law-abiding teenagers and young men in removal proceedings because of an NSEERS snafu or status violation was a great abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

While the NSEERS program was scaled back in 2003 and most recently this past April, the problems associated with NSEERS linger nearly ten years later. Imagine, a now 25 year old married to a U.S. citizen or working for a U.S. employer who perhaps had no knowledge about registration at the ripe age of 16 and as consequence is denied a green card because he “failed” to register under NSEERS. Imagine, a now breadwinner and primary caretaker to elderly parents or U.S. citizen living in the U.S. who is facing removal because he was afraid to register under NSEERS based on the detentions and deportation faced by his neighbors or relatives. And consider, Mohammed G. Azam, a Bangladeshi man with compelling qualities who was placed in removal proceeding after complying with NSEERS in 2003 and only after years of counsel from a top immigration lawyer and an article in the New York Times, is no longer a priority for DHS.

Short of a complete repeal of the punishments associated with these registrations, it is critical that ICE apply the Morton Memo on Prosecutorial Discretion favorably towards NSEERS branded people who have laid down roots in the U.S., built families, and contributed to the U.S. economy and in short, possess the equities listed in the Morton Memo.

ImmigrationProf Blog
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

July 14, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Conference Call on NSEERS July 7, 2011

2011-06-30T21:10:00.002-04:00

RWG Membership Conference Call: National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS)

Date: July 7th at 3:00 pm ET / 12:00 PT

Please join a call for RWG members on the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). Recently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that the NSEERS program has been suspended. What does this announcement mean for our communities? This call will discuss how the announcement impacts the communities we work with, highlight available resources, and provide an update on on-going advocacy with the government to terminate NSEERS.

Speakers:

* Priya Murthy, South Asian Americans Leading Together
* Linda Sarsour, Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services / National Network for Arab American Communities
* Monami Maulik, Desis Rising Up and Moving
* Sameera Hafiz, Rights Working Group (Moderator)

To Register email: shafiz@rightsworkinggroup.org

Case Stemming From Antiterrorism Registry Is Dropped

2011-06-02T12:05:00.000-04:00

Case Stemming From Antiterrorism Registry Is Dropped
By SAM DOLNICK

Immigration authorities announced on Wednesday that they will drop their case against Mohammed G. Azam, a young Bangladeshi man who had been fighting deportation since 2003, when he registered with a special post-9/11 program for Muslims.

In April, the government ended the “special registration” program, which critics had said amounted to racial profiling, but Mr. Azam was one of perhaps hundreds still caught in its net.

Dozens of local elected officials rallied behind Mr. Azam, a manager at a local Häagen Dazs store, calling him a “model citizen.” The New York Times published an article about Mr. Azam’s case on Tuesday.

“I just cannot explain how happy I am,” Mr. Azam said after hearing the news. “My mom can’t stop crying. She’s so happy; she can’t stop crying.”

Mr. Azam, 26, has been stuck in immigration law limbo since he was a teenager.

His father, Mohammed Hossain, applied for permanent resident status in 2001, when Mr. Azam was 16. But Mr. Hossain was not approved until 2007, when his son was 22. Immigration officials argued that Mr. Azam was too old to benefit from his father’s new status, and they pressed forward in their efforts to deport him.

In February, an immigration judge ruled that the case against Mr. Azam should be dropped, arguing that he should not be penalized for the government’s delay in processing his father’s application.

Immigration authorities had been preparing an appeal, but on Wednesday, Luis M. Martinez, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman, said they would drop the case.

Nancy Morawetz, of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at the New York University School of Law, which represents Mr. Azam, said, “This just lifts an enormous burden.”

The Manhattan borough president, Scott M. Stringer, who took up Mr. Azam’s cause, said work still remained.

“It doesn’t end with this case,” he said. “There are countless others who find themselves in similar situations.”

.

A Post-9/11 Registration Effort Ends, but Not Its Effects

2011-05-31T10:04:00.004-04:00

A Post-9/11 Registration Effort Ends, but Not Its Effects
By SAM DOLNICK
Published: May 30, 2011

In the jittery months after the 9/11 attacks, the federal government created a program that required thousands of Arab and Muslim men to register with the authorities, in an effort to uncover terror links and immigration violations.

After complaints that the practice, known as special registration, amounted to racial profiling, the Homeland Security Department scaled back the program in 2003, and ended it late last month, saying it “no longer provides a unique security value.”

But for Mohammed G. Azam, a 26-year-old Bangladeshi native who came to the United States when he was 9, its legacy lives on. When he registered in Manhattan in 2003, officials began deportation proceedings, and now, eight years and numerous hearings later, his case has outlasted the program.

Mr. Azam is one of hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of people still caught in the program’s net, immigration experts say.

More than two dozen New York elected officials have rallied behind Mr. Azam, who came to this country as a child and overstayed his visa. A soft-spoken man known to his friends as Johnny, Mr. Azam manages a Häagen Dazs store at the South Street Seaport and wants to open a Subway sandwich franchise. He graduated from Monroe College in the Bronx in 2009.

“I have big plans,” he said. “But I’m always scared that I’m going to be deported.”

The Manhattan borough president, Scott M. Stringer, along with a host of state legislators, sent a letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials last week praising Mr. Azam as “a model citizen” who should be allowed to stay indefinitely.

Most important, Mr. Azam has also gained the support of Gabriel C. Videla, an immigration judge who ruled in February that his deportation case be thrown out and that he be granted permanent resident status.

The immigration agency appealed that decision, just as it did in 2007 when another judge threw out the case because of violations committed by its agents. Agency officials declined to comment, a spokesman said.

The registration program uncovered little intelligence — 11 of the more than 85,000 men who came forward in the first year were found to have ties to terrorism — but it caught thousands of people who had been living in the country illegally, leading to a significant wave of deportations.

“It was a kind of knee-jerk targeting that took place in the wake of Sept. 11,” said Nancy Morawetz, co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at the New York University School of Law, which represents Mr. Azam.

Mr. Azam came to the authorities’ attention by registering, as was required, but his case now hinges on unrelated questions about his age, and the cost of bureaucratic delay.

His father, Mohammed Hossain, applied for permanent resident status in 2001, when Mr. Azam was 16, through a program that allowed immigrants to pay a $1,000 fine and clear their records of visa-related violations. Because of an extensive backlog, Mr. Hossain was not approved until 2007, when his son was 22 — an adult in the eyes of immigration officials.

Mr. Hossain was able to sponsor his wife and daughter for permanent resident status, but Mr. Azam was denied because, immigration authorities contended, he was now too old to benefit from his father’s new status.

His lawyers called that argument unfair. “If they had processed this quickly, he would be a permanent resident today,” Ms. Morawetz said.

Judge Videla agreed, ruling in February that Mr. Azam should not be penalized for “the extraordinary administrative delays” that stalled his father’s application for so long. The judge cited a 2002 law Congress passed to help keep families together; it allows relatives of visa applicants to retain their status as children, even if they are over 21 by the time their case is considered.

But immigration authorities said they would appeal that ruling, pressing forward with their effort to deport Mr. Azam.

Mr. Stringer, among others, is asking officials to drop the appeal. “He is what our country is all about,” he said of Mr. Azam. “For ICE people to dig in their heels, I think, is just outrageous.”

Mr. Azam has managed to stay sanguine, despite the grinding worry and the personal costs — the case will keep him from attending his sister’s wedding this summer in Bangladesh.

“One-third of my life has gone to this immigration process,” he said. “I grew up here. This is my country.”

A version of this article appeared in print on May 31, 2011, on page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: A Post-9/11 Registration Effort Ends, but Not Its Effects..

Letter to DHS Secretary Regarding Unfinished Work Around NSEERS

2011-05-18T22:58:00.005-04:00

May 17, 2011

The Honorable Janet Napolitano Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Secretary Napolitano:

The undersigned organizations are writing to request a meeting with you and your delegates to discuss the residual populations affected by the National Security Entry-Exit System (NSEERS) program, and possible remedies for such individuals. In light of the President’s Executive Order directing agencies to review existing regulations that “may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned,” we are also recommending that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) repeal the regulations that govern NSEERS or special registration. We appreciate DHS’ recent rule published in the Federal Register1 suspending the NSEERS program for nationals and citizens from 25 predominantly-Muslim countries previously required to register. However, we believe the intent and spirit of the rule (characterized as “effectively ending [the] registration process” by DHS itself2) requires DHS to implement a specific policy reprieving the scores of individuals who are currently or have been affected by NSEERS; to provide information on databases of individuals who participated in the program; and to consider eliminating the underlying regulatory framework entirely.

As you know, the NSEERS program was controversial from its inception in 2002 because of its discriminatory nature, lack of notice and procedures by DHS about the program, and the inability

of DHS to process NSEERS cases. The program’s ineffectiveness as a national security tool was highlighted by DHS itself when it confirmed, “As threats to the United States evolve, DHS seeks to identify specific individuals and actions that pose specific threats, rather than focusing on more general designations of groups of individuals, such as country of origin.”3

A less publicized impact of the NSEERS program are the scores of individuals who currently are “stuck” in the immigration process, have been denied a benefit by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), have been denied admission, placed in removal proceedings, and/or ordered removed due to an NSEERS-related issue. The impact of NSEERS on individuals and their families is striking when considering the number of individuals who are happily married to a U.S. citizen, gainfully employed and/or squarely eligible for removal relief, but who are treated differently and unequally because of an NSEERS issue. To this end, we believe that DHS must issue guidance that calls for the favorable exercise of discretion for individuals facing an immigration consequence as a result of NSEERS. This guidance must be adopted by USCIS, CBP and ICE to ensure that individuals who are seeking a benefit, may be eligible for a benefit, facing removal, or seeking admission into the U.S. are treated similarly and favorably.

Also attached is a report issued by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Penn State Dickinson Law School’s Immigrant Rights Clinic, NSEERS: The Consequences of America’s Efforts to Secure Its Borders” which illustrates the importance of addressing the residual impact of NSEERS and the impact that it continues to have on community members. http://www.adc.org/PDF/nseerspaper.pdf

Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions, please contact Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia at ssw11@psu.edu.

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Abed Ayoub
American Immigration Lawyers Association

Muslim Public Affairs Council
Penn State Law’s Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia*

Rights Working Group South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow, Priya Murthy

*affiliation listed for informational purposes only

Enclosure

cc: John Sandweg, Counselor to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, DHS Mary Kate Whalen, Managing Counsel, Office of General Counsel, DHS David Heyman, Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy, DHS Margo Schlanger, Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, DHS

John Wagner, Executive Director, CBP Lori Scialabba, Deputy Director, CIS Beth Gibson, Assistant Deputy Director, ICE

1 “Removing Designated Countries from the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), 76 Federal Register 82 (April 28, 2011), pp.23830-23831. Available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/pdf/2011- 10305.pdf.

2 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Press Office, “Fact Sheet: DHS Streamlines Collection of Data for Individuals Entering and Exiting the United States.” (April 27, 2011). Available athttp://photos.state.gov/libraries/singapore/231771/PDFs/NSEERS.pdf

3 Supra note 1, at 23830.

NSEERS News

2011-05-17T14:50:00.000-04:00

News Updates: NSEERS Rule

Homeland Security Ends immigrant Registration that Targeted Men from Muslim Countries [Detroit Free Press]

May 17, 2011- The U.S. government has ended a controversial counterterrorism program created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that required men living in the U.S. who came from mostly Muslim countries to register with federal authorities. Called NSEERS -- National Security Entry-Exit Registration System -- the program required registration, interviews and fingerprinting of male visitors 16 and older from Muslim nations as well as North Korea. The program targeted men entering the country as well as more than 80,000 men already in the U.S., about 1,000 of them from metro Detroit. Nearly 13,800 residents were further investigated, and 2,870 were later deported. But not a single case resulted in anyone being charged with terrorism -- a fact that experts say proves the program was a failure that unfairly harassed thousands. NSEERS did "not catch terrorists," said Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, a law professor at Penn State University who has extensively researched the program. "It was ineffective and alienating."

May 17, 2011- The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on April 28 that it would terminate the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), one of the most controversial immigration programs implemented in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Homeland Security Turns the Page on a Flawed Round-Up Policy [Mercer Sun Star]

May 6, 2011- Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. government established a policy requiring men and boys from 25 countries - almost all Muslim, and all of them in Asia or Africa - to report for "special registration." Turns out it wasn't such a hot idea.

May 4, 2011- Ten years after Sept. 11, 2001, the animating target of the war on terror is dead, his body cast into the sea. A chapter is closed. Yet, in many communities here in the United States, it seemed the target was never just Osama bin Laden. For Arabs and Muslims in the U.S., and for those lumped carelessly together with them, the war on terrorism has not been an abstraction waged in far off lands, but a fight that’s engulfed communities right here at home.

After Nine Years, DHS Finally Drops SB1070 for Muslims [New America Media]

May 3, 2011- After nine years of pressure from civil rights advocates, the Department of Homeland Security has quietly announced the end of NSEERS (National Security Entry/Exit Registration System, sometimes called Special Registration), one of the most explicitly racist, underreported initiatives in post-9/11 America, Colorlines reports.
Read more...

2011-04-28T12:46:00.023-04:00

DHS Suspends NSEERS

DHS has made a move in the right direction by suspending the NSEERS program prospectively! Specifically, DHS posted a rule on the National Security Entry and Exit Program READ THE RULE . This major step by DHS follows nearly 10 years of advocacy and reaction by community members, NGOs, and leaders in Congress and DHS who made sure NSEERS remains a priority issue for the Administration. Effective April 28, the rule “de-lists” the citizens and nationals of countries subject to NSEERS. It is now critical that DHS use this rule to grant relief to those affected by NSEERS retrospectively. DHS must exercise discretion favorably for a program that even DHS has confirmed was controversial and ineffective. These individuals include fathers, breadwinners, husband and employees who have been stuck in legal limbo, placed in removal proceedings, denied admission and/or denied a green card or the ability to work because of NSEERS issues. Please see below for the various blogposts and press statements by groups and individuals around new policy suspending NSEERS.

“Special Registration” Requirements Suspended: South Asian Network Welcomes This Partial Victory
May 2, 2011- On Thursday, April 28, 2011, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) registration requirements process, also known as “Special Registration,” was suspended. Implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002, Special Registration was a counter-productive response to September 11th, 2001. From the start, South Asian Network (SAN) organized against the program, which served to split apart thousands families and break apart South Asian communities across the U.S. through detention and deportation.

Read more...

Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights Plays Role in Key Post-9/11 Policy Shift
April 28, 2011- The Department of Homeland Security announced it would suspend the controversial NSEERS (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System) program implemented in the wake of September 11, 2001, a move which had been advocated for by the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants’ Rights.
Read more...

America's Voice, DHS Announces End to National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS)
April 28, 2011- One of the most offensive post-9/11 anti-immigrant policies dreamed up by our federal government is finally gone. Yesterday, DHS announced the end of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), astate-sanctioned racial profiling program that wasted serious amounts of government resources while damaging our country’s reputation, and treating whole groups of people as “other” because of where they came from, not what they did.
Read more...

Immigration Impact, DHS Removes Countries From Special Registration List, But Leaves Door Open for Future Placements
April 28, 2011- This week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it will remove all countries from theNational Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). Previously, nonimmigrant travelers from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen were forced to comply with special registration requirements, including providing fingerprints, a photograph, and any additional information required by DHS to DHS officials at the time the nonimmigrant applies for admission at a U.S. port of entry.
Read more...

DRUM Welcomes Victory in Ending NSEERS and Calls for Accountability for Thousands of Muslim Families Already Torn Apart
April 28, 2011- After years of organizing to end one of the worst racial profiling policies, DRUM celebrates the suspension of the controversial National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) also known as 'Special Registrations' by the Department of Homeland Security yesterday. DRUM led the Coalition against Special Registrations in New York City and joined advocates across the country in campaigning to end the first phase started in 2002 wherein over 84,000 Muslim boys and men between the ages of 16 and 45 registered, leading to over 13,000 put into deportation proceedings based on civil immigration violations, and causing around 2,800 to be detained, all as a result of lawfully complying with the program. Thousands of families have been torn apart, jobs lost, and neighborhoods and communities devastated, many of which have still yet to recover. This massive and ineffective profiling campaign based on religion and ethnicity led to zero identifications and convictions of anyone associated with any cases of terrorism, but has come at extensive social, ethical, and economic costs.
Read more...

DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Removing Designated Countries from the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS)
April 27, 2011-
Dear Colleagues:

Today, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the elimination of the list of countries whose nationals have been subject to registration under the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS)—effectively ending the NSEERS registration process through the publication of a notice in the Federal Register.
Read more...

Advocacy Organizations Welcome DHS Policy Change Regarding NSEERS
April 27, 2011-The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), and South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), along with the Arab American Institute (AAI), the National Immigration Forum (NIF) and theRights Working Group (RWG), welcome the decision by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to modify the National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS). According to DHS through a notice published in the Federal Register, effective tomorrow, nationals and citizens of countries currently subject to NSEERS are no longer required to register.
Read more...

AILA Welcomes End of NSEERS Country Listings, Calls for Program's Complete Termination

April 27, 2011- The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) welcomes the notice from the Department of Homeland Security that the agency will depopulate the country listings from its National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). The program required all temporary immigrants from 25 predominantly-Muslim countries to register their presence, fingerprints, and photographs with local immigration offices or officers at U.S. ports of entry. NSEERS, criticized for contributing to racial profiling and civil rights violations, was notorious for procedures that were unclear, underpublicized and difficult for individuals to follow.

April 27, 2011- The Department of Homeland Security today, in a long-overdue announcement, said it will indefinitely suspend the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). Instituted in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, NSEERS was a domestic immigration enforcement program targeting men and boys from predominantly Arab- and Muslim-majority nations for extraordinary registration requirements with DHS. The program was repeatedly condemned by the United Nations’ Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as resulting in widespread profiling of tens of thousands of immigrants from Arab- and Muslim-majority countries.

Read more...

MPAC Welcomes DHS' Suspension of National Entry-Exit Registration System

April 27, 2011- The Muslim Public Affairs Council welcomes the indefinite suspension of the National Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) by the Department of Homeland Security(DHS). MPAC joins a coalition, which includes the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, South Asian Americans Leading Together, Rights Working Group, and others, in welcoming the change in DHS policy.
Read more...

CAIR Welcomes DHS Decision to Drop NSEERS Program
April 27, 2011- A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization today welcomed a decision by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to effectively drop the controversial National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS).

Letter to DHS Secretary Napolitano urging the termination of NSEERS

2010-08-17T16:54:00.009-04:00

August 16, 2010

The Honorable Janet Napolitano

Secretary of Homeland Security

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528

Dear Secretary Napolitano:

We are writing to follow-up on our letter dated December 7, 2009, in which we requested that your Department terminate the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). We have since been informed that your office is in the process of reviewing the NSEERS program, which we welcome as a positive step forward.

We urge you to terminate NSEERS, particularly in light of the recent shift away from racial and religious profiling as evidenced by the rescission of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA’s) screening policy in April 2010, the continued dissemination of inaccurate information on NSEERS, and the lack of understanding by some of Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) own employees about the current status of NSEERS. In addition, we are providing you with proposed policy considerations and practicable solutions to be implemented in the post-termination stages.

I - Relevant Developments since our December 7, 2009 Correspondence:

A) Movement Away from Policies Based on Racial and Religious Profiling

Since our last correspondence, we welcomed the rescission of the TSA screening policy,[i] which targeted travelers and nationals from fourteen predominantly Muslim countries--including U.S. citizens--for extra scrutiny in international airports. This rescission signaled a change in the structure of national security policies, mainly a shift away from policies based on racial, religious, and national origin profiling to policies based on intelligence-driven information.

NSEERS and the now-defunct TSA policy share one common denominator: the targeting of individuals based on their country of origin and/or religion. We call on your Department to take prompt action to terminate NSEERS, applying a similar reasoning to that which your Department articulated when rescinding the TSA policy.

B) Persistence of Inaccurate Information Regarding NSEERS

We are particularly concerned that dissemination of inaccurate information regarding NSEERS registration procedures continues to this day, eight years after its initial implementation. This was evidenced by the May 5, 2010, notice published in the Federal Register (Vol. 75, No. 86), 75 FR 24721. The notice stated that NSEERS:

“. . . requires certain nonimmigrant aliens to make specific reports to USICE upon arrival, approximately 30 days after arrival, every 12 months after arrival; upon certain events, such as change of address, employment or school; and at the time they leave the United States.”

This information, however, was partly overruled by DHS’s 2003 interim rule suspending the automatic 30-day and annual registration requirements.[ii] Moreover, the procedures for special registration at departure remain intact and are conducted by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents or a CBP field office director and not by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), as stated in the May 5, 2010, notice.[iii]

Unfortunately, such dissemination of inaccurate information on NSEERS is not new. When NSEERS was initially rolled out, government officials reported the existence of contradictory or inaccurate NSEERS-related notices.[iv] Recent incidents shared by NSEERS registrants at ports of entry also illustrate the continued dissemination of inaccurate information on the current status of NSEERS. Specifically, community-based organizations have received reports that confusion remains among CBP agents as to where NSEERS currently stands and/or what it requires.[v]

The initial lack of adequate notice of the program coupled with the continued dissemination of inaccurate information on the program provide great rationale for the need to terminate NSEERS. The structure and scope of the program have been immensely challenging to follow, have encouraged racial profiling, and continue to profoundly harm individuals. The program has also placed a heavy burden on both registrants [vi] and employees of governmental agencies, many of whom lack sufficient understanding of the program’s requirements.

C) DHS OIG’s Audit of NSEERS

In November 2009, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) committed to undertake a review of the NSEERS program.[vii] The OIG has listed the audit in its Revised Annual Performance Plan as planned to commence by FY 2010.[viii] It is our understanding that the OIG is currently working with top DHS leadership to further define the scope of the audit; however, no specific timeline has yet been determined.

While we urge you to act promptly to terminate NSEERS, we still believe that the OIG audit should be thoughtfully undertaken and fully completed following termination of the program. This audit presents a unique opportunity to identify the problems and burdensome costs incurred both by government agencies and registrants and to provide details about the impact of NSEERS on affected communities, which could inform the kind of solutions needed post-termination. Such careful documentation of the problems with NSEERS can help ensure that similar programs with widespread detrimental effects are not implemented in the future.

In short, we view your Department’s review and the OIG’s audit as separate and independent. We hope you will decide to terminate NSEERS promptly, and that the OIG’s audit will still proceed after the termination of the program. Similarly, should any prospective termination be on the horizon, we call for such termination not to be delayed due to the planned OIG’s audit.

II - Practicable Immigration Solutions for Those Currently Adversely Affected by

NSEERS:

If NSEERS is terminated, we are eager to provide your Department with our expertise in finding meaningful solutions for those individuals whose immigration status has been negatively affected by NSEERS. In addition, we can provide your Department with a list of immigration law practitioners who deal with NSEERS cases on a daily basis and who can aid in arriving at practicable solutions.

In addition to urging the termination of NSEERS, we also recommend that individuals who were unfairly affected be provided relief. These recommendations include but are not limited to:

1. Individuals who did not comply with NSEERS due to a lack of knowledge or fear of negative consequences should not lose eligibility or be denied specific relief or a benefit, to which they are otherwise eligible. Similarly, the Administration should provide relief to individuals who were placed in removal proceedings because of their participation in NSEERS.

2. The Administration should allow individuals impacted by NSEERS, who have been removed, to return to the United States, should they have a basis for re-entering the United States. Special consideration should be given to individuals with immediate family members living in the United States and/or those with pending benefit applications.[ix]

Moreover, in the short term, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) needs to make sure that discretion is favorably exercised towards those eligible for a current or future immigration benefit, but who may not have complied with an NSEERS requirement.[x] Equally important, USCIS needs to discontinue branding potential green card holders with a “willful failure to register” label without justification or foundation.[xi] This branding has taken place across the board in many local USCIS offices, without giving consideration to the many favorable factors and strong equities that an NSEERS registrant may have.

Finally, DHS should repeal or modify various NSEERS-related memos that conflict with the Meissner memo, which had specifically called on the then Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officers to take into account various factors when exercising prosecutorial discretion. Some of these factors include: Immigration status, length of residence in the U.S., criminal history, humanitarian concerns, immigration history, whether the alien is eligible or is likely to be eligible for other relief, effect of future admissibility, current or past collaboration with law enforcement authorities, community attention, and resources available to the then-INS.[xii] Sadly, many of the NSEERS cases would not have been a focus of the immigration agency had these factors been applied, thus saving resources and maximizing efficiency to several components of DHS.

III - Conclusion:

The continuing problems with NSEERS can only be remedied by terminating the program and providing relief for well-intentioned individuals affected by NSEERS.[xiii] Such termination would underscore your Department’s shift away from ineffective policies involving racial and/or religious profiling. It would also ensure that potential U.S. citizens negatively affected by residual impacts of the program are provided relief so that they can continue to enrich our great Nation.

Closing Remarks:

Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, you may contact Ms. Sara Najjar-Wilson, President of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (on 202-244-2990, or at sara@adc.org), 1732 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20007; or Ms. Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Clinical Professor and Director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights at Penn State Dickinson School of Law (on 814-865-3823, or at ssw11@psu.edu), Penn State Law, 121C Lewis Katz Building, University Park, PA 16802.

Finally, we respectfully request that we be provided with an update on your Department’s review of the program.

Sincerely,

Sara Najjar-Wilson, President, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)

David W. Leopold, President, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)

Dr. James Zogby, President, Arab American Institute (AAI)

Ali Noorani, Executive Director, National Immigration Forum (NIF)

Margaret Huang, Executive Director, Rights Working Group (RWG)

Deepa Iyer, Executive Director, South Asian American Leading Together (SAALT)

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Clinical Professor and Director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Penn State Dickinson School of Law [xiv]

CC:

Arif Alikhan, DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy Development

David Heyman, DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy

Juliette Kayyem, DHS Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Programs

David Martin, DHS Principal Deputy General Counsel

Esther Olavarria, DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy

Margo Schlanger, DHS Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

[i] See Press Release, Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., ADC Cautiously Welcomes Revised TSA Policy (Apr. 2, 2010), available at http://www.adc.org/media/press-releases/2010/april-2010/adc-cautiously-welcomes-revised-tsa-policy/; Press Release, Rts. Working Group, Rights Working Group Commends DHS’ Announcement to Rescind Fourteen Country Protocol (Apr. 2, 2010), available at http://www.rightsworkinggroup.org/content/right-working-group-commends-dhs%E2%80%99s-announcement-rescind-fourteen-country-protocol; Press Release, S. Asian Ams. Leading Together, New Airport Screening Policies (Apr. 2, 2010), available at http://saalt.presstools.org/node/35207.

[ii] Suspending the 30-Day and Annual Interview Requirements from the Special Registration Process for Certain Nonimmigrants, 68 Fed. Reg. 67578 (Dec. 2, 2003).

[iii] Id.

[iv] See Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. & Penn St. U.’s Dickinson Sch. L. Ctr. For Immigrants’ Rts. NSEERS: The Consequences of America’s Efforts to Secure Its Borders 21 (2009), available at http://www.adc.org/PDF/nseerspaper.pdf [hereinafter NSEERS Report].

[v] NSEERS registrants filed such incidents and reports with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

[vi] See e.g., Posting of Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia to Race Matters, http://endnseers.blogspot.com/2009/11/commentary-on-late-nseers-registration.html (Nov. 19, 2009). “Late registrants are not being placed into removal proceedings but instead are being required to undergo an interview and exchange dense correspondence with ICE and/or USCIS in order to be ‘cleared’ for late registration.”

[vii] See Press Release, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Office of Inspector General at DHS to Audit NSEERS at the Request of ADC and Other Major Organizations (Nov. 19, 2009), available at http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=3524.

[viii] Off. Inspector Gen., Dep’t Homeland Sec., Revised Annual Performance Plan For FY 2010 56-57 (2010), available at http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/OIG_APP_Rev_FY10.pdf. The audit will be specifically geared towards “(1) determin[ing] the effectiveness of NSEERS as a counterterror tool, focusing on the utility of the information collected, the uses to which that information has been put by DHS, and positive outcomes; (2) review[ing] the impact of NSEERS on the targeted communities; and (3) evaluat[ing] the degree to which NSEERS objectives could be met using other DHS data systems, specifically US-VISIT.”

[ix] See NSEERS Report, supra note iv, at 6-7.

[x] Posting of Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia to Race Matters, http://endnseers.blogspot.com/2009/11/commentary-on-late-nseers-registration.html (Nov. 19, 2009).

[xi] Id.

[xii] See, e.g.; Memo from Doris Meissner, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, HQOPP 50/4 (Nov. 17, 2000).

[xiii] See NSEERS Report, supra note iv, at 6-7.

[xiv] Affiliation listed for informational purposes only.

“I understand that the US needs to protect its border, but NSEERS is not the way to carry this out.”

2010-07-19T23:30:00.004-04:00

I am a Canadian citizen and have been living in Canada for the last fifteen years or so. I used to be an Indonesian citizen, but got that citizenship automatically revoked upon receiving my Canadian citizenship, as Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship.

I currently live in a Canadian city close to the American border. Though I am now a Canadian citizen, I still endure NSEERS simply because I was born in Indonesia.

I have visited the US many times since I first arrived in Canada in 1995, be it for business reasons or tourism. I do not have any family members in the US, and the longest period I have ever stayed in the US lasted two weeks, during a holiday.

Since the enactment of NSEERS, I have been poorly treated every single time I visit the US.

NSEERS Incidents

· In 2006, I was admitted to the NSEERS program. I was then a Canadian permanent resident, but because I still retained my Indonesian passport, I was constantly being pulled aside when I crossed the border. I had to join the NSEERS program, although I had been in and out of the US many times before then. At first, I thought NSEERS would only require the standard fingerprinting and picture-taking as my other visits entailed. I was wrong; NSEERS required much more than that. I was asked about my parents, their dates of birth, what I do in Canada, my travel history and pattern, among many other questions. I get asked these questions every single time I enter the US. To make matters worse, the exit procedure is also not a pleasant experience.

· In April 2007, when I was still an Indonesian citizen but still a Canadian permanent resident, I had to go across the border to pick up an automotive part because the owner would only send it within the US. As expected, I was pulled aside when crossing and asked to proceed to secondary processing. Assuming that it would only take a short time, I proceeded with the interview and the rest of the requirements. Prior to 9/11, the crossing that used to take a mere 30 minutes now took almost four hours. That day, something was wrong; the officer either lacked in training to process NSEERS or the computer system was not working. The officer could not find my one and only Finger Identification Number (FIN)—which is assigned to every single NSEERS registrant upon registration. The interviewing officer had to start my registration procedure from the beginning and I was issued a new FIN number. To make the matter worse, there was no bathroom in the area where I was waiting for four hours, and that was a torture of a different level.

The next few times, I entered the US was through a different border crossing and, per usual, it took a long time to get processed at the entry and exit point. This happened even after I became a Canadian citizen, and I no longer hold an Indonesian passport.

· On April 18, 2010, I entered the US for the first time since I became a Canadian citizen. I was pulled aside for secondary questioning, but I was told by the supervising officer that I do not need to be fingerprinted since I am now a Canadian citizen.

· However, on June 23, 2010, I decided to go visit Point Roberts, WA, and was stopped for secondary screening. I was asked to go through NSEERS even though I had my Canadian passport and was told just a few months earlier that I would not have to endure NSEERS. When I complained to the officer, he told me he could not do anything and that he had been ordered to do so.

Now, if I do choose to come to the US via different modes of transportation, I will run into the following NSEERS related problems:

If I choose to enter the US by bus, the bus is unlikely to wait for me if the processing takes a few hours. Moreover, if I exit the US by bus, I would be violating NSEERS’ rules because the bus would just drive through the Canadian border, which would make me unable to be processed at the designated exit point. Failure to exit properly would create problems the next time I try to enter the US.
If I choose to exit the US by train, I would again be violating NSEERS’ rules because the train will only stop at the Canadian destination. At that destination, I would go through Canadian customs, but not through the standard NSEERS exit procedures at the US Border. Failure to exit properly would create problems the next time I try to enter the US.
If I choose to fly in or connect to a different flight in the US, the extra processing time would increase my chances of missing my connecting flight. The extra fees and time cannot be attributed to the US Customs and Border Protection because it is not their problem that I was pulled aside for being subjected to NSEERS.

In a sense, NSEERS has stopped me from visiting America for business reasons or tourism. I enjoyed visiting the US before NSEERS was implemented, but a short trip is no longer worth the trouble of spending four hours at the border to be processed under NSEERS, despite being a Canadian citizen.

James--

the name is fictitious to preserve anonymity.

2010-06-30T17:16:00.003-04:00

Dear Advocates:

There is an important, unique and pressing opportunity to comment on the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) in response to the May 5, 2010 Notice Published in the Federal Register (FR), Vol. 75, No. 86 (75 FR 24721) pertaining to NSEERS. THE DEADLINE IS NEXT WEEK ON JULY 6^TH.

Click here to download the MODEL COMMENT prepared by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in response to the Notice. Also, click here to download a copy of the federal register publication.

This model comment may be adapted for groups and individuals who wish to respond to an important information request re: burden of NSEERS. While the language of the Notice may seem ministerial, it presents an important and unique opportunity to educate and highlight the monetary and human costs of the NSEERS program, and press for its termination.

ADDRESS TO SEND COMMENTS TO:

Mr. Joseph M. Gerhart, Chief, Records Management Branch

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

500 12th Street, S.W., Room 3138

Washington, DC 20024

ANY NSEERS STORIES TO SHARE?

If you have any stories regarding NSEERS registrants, please do not hesitate to share them with us. This will enhance our advocacy efforts to terminate NSEERS.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me (fahed@adc.org or 202-244-2990) and Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia (ssw11@psu.edu or 814-865-3823), Clinical Professor and Director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights at Penn State Dickinson School of Law.

All the best,

Fahed.

ADC Continues to Call for the Termination of NSEERS

2010-06-30T13:58:00.000-04:00

Washington, DC | June 29, 2010 | www.adc.org | The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) today submitted detailed comments in response to the May 5, 2010 Notice, Published in the Federal Register (FR), Vol. 75, No. 86 (75 FR 24721) pertaining to the National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS). In its comments, ADC unequivocally reaffirmed its long standing position that NSEERS must be terminated and that NSEERS-related regulations be repealed. You can read ADC's comments by clicking here.

Implemented after 9/11 as a counterterrorism tool, and built on a discriminatory structure targeting non-immigrants from Arab, Muslim and South Asian countries, NSEERS has not only been ineffective for counterterrorism purposes, but also has had a negative impact on governmental outreach efforts with these communities. The actual practical utility of the program has been called into question, and is scheduled to be audited by the Office of Inspector General within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) before the end of 2010. The program also continues to burden both DHS and the registrants with unnecessary and extra costs.

Eight years after the implementation of the program, governmental information on NSEERS continues to be shockingly inaccurate, as evidenced in the May 5, 2010, Notice. ADC calls on the Obama Administration to end the shame of NSEERS, shift away from policies solely based on national origin and religious profiling tactics, and provide relief for well-intentioned individuals adversely affected by the program.

More Information about ADC's Advocacy on NSEERS:

To read about general developments on NSEERS, please see the report on NSEERS issued last year by ADC and the Center for Immigrants' Rights at Penn State's Dickinson School of Law. ADC also has developed a blog the Race Matters Blog or "EndNSEERS" blog; and the Revised Annual Performance planof the Office of Inspector General discussing its plan for auditing NSEERS by the end of 2010 (pages 56-57).

Legal problems related to NSEERS? ADC Legal Department offers Pro Bono Assistance

If you have legal problems as a result of NSEERS, please do not hesitate to contact the ADC Legal Department for pro bono assistance. You can reach the ADC Legal Department by e-mailinglegal@adc.org, or calling 202-244-2990.

NSEERS and Arizona’s Anti-Immigrant Law: What’s the Connection?

2010-05-28T19:29:00.003-04:00

By Priya Murthy, Esq. Policy Director at South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT)

You’ve probably heard about Arizona’s recent anti-immigrant legislation signed into law in late April. Under the new policy, police are required to determine the immigration status of any one that they stop, detain, or arrest. In addition, it also allows race to be used as a factor in determining whether someone is in the country unlawfully and makes it a crime to not carry your immigration papers.

What does this have to do with the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), a post-9/11 initiative instituted by the federal government requiring certain male nationals of predominantly Arab and Muslim-majority countries, including Bangladesh and Pakistan, to register with the government? The connections run deeper than you may first think.

First off, it’s probably no coincidence that both policies share the same chief architect and proponent, Kris Kobach. While at the Department of Justice in the wake of 9/11, he spearheaded efforts within the federal government that established the NSEERS program. In the years that passed, he began assisting state and local lawmakers in drafting, defending, and implementing anti-immigrant policies in Pennsylvania, Missouri, and, most recently, Arizona.

While sharing the same “inventor” is disturbing enough, the real similarities between the two policies become clear when you look at their impact on communities. Profiling is the result of both NSEERS and the Arizona law. Whether it is requiring individuals to register with the government simply because of their religion or national origin or allowing police to check the immigration status of anyone who appears “foreign”, the discrimination borne by communities of color is evident.

Communities that have been affected by profiling (including African-Americans, Arabs, Asians, Latinos, Muslims, Sikhs, and South Asians), know all too well that such policies diminish trust with law enforcement and undermine public safety. As a result of NSEERS, witnesses and victims of crimes (such as domestic violence, hate crimes, and even national security threats) were reluctant to reach out to police for assistance, and the Arizona law stands to have the same repercussions. At the same time, there is no evidence that either program will achieve the purported goal of keeping this country any safer.

Which is why it’s no surprise that organizations that have worked with communities affected by NSEERS and other post-9/11 policies resulting in profiling have come out against the Arizona law. Two Arizona-based organizations, Arizona South Asians for Safe Families and the local chapter of theMuslim American Society joined a lawsuit, filed by the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and theAsian American Justice Center, challenging the new law’s constitutionality. National civil and immigrant rights organizations advocating on behalf of post-9/11 affected communities have also expressed concerns about the Arizona law as well, including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Rights Working Group, Muslim Public Affairs Council, and South Asian Americans Leading Together. Our communities know that profiling is wrong - whether it happens because of NSEERS or because of Arizona’s law, which is we need to stand together against policies that perpetuate it.

The Time for National Healing Begins Now

2010-03-05T09:59:00.003-05:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepa-iyer/looking-ahead-to-9112011_b_485699.html

Deepa Iyer, SAALT's Executive Director

Looking ahead to 9/11/2011: The Time for National Healing Begins Now

In mid-February, people around the country marked the National Day of Remembrance to acknowledge the impact of Executive Order 9066, which led to the internment of 120,000 Japanese American citizens and residents during World War II on the basis of their national origin and ethnicity. It has been over 65 years since Executive Order 9066 was implemented, and yet, it seems that our leaders continue to make policy decisions rooted in many of the same faulty assumptions and fear tactics on which Executive Order 9066 was based.

Since September 11, 2001, South Asians, Arab Americans, and Muslims have become the latest targets of suspicion in the United States and in many European countries. In every context - the workplace, the school yard, the airport and the borders, and even in places of worship - community members have been reporting increased levels of harassment, bullying, and surveillance.

These experiences are not limited to the private sector. South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) and other civil rights organizations have long documented the pattern of government-sponsored policies that specifically target individuals who are affiliated with certain countries or religious faiths (primarily Muslim). In the days after September 11th, the United States government began to utilize immigration law and courts as well as interrogation and detention practices based on national security justifications in order to identify, target and hold countless South Asians, Arab Americans and Muslims.

The policies enacted bear important-sounding names - special interest detainees; special registration or NSEERS -but the impact has been nothing short of devastating: families being torn apart; civil rights and liberties being denied even in the justice system; deportations ranging in the thousands; and neighborhood landscapes in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and other metropolitan areas forever altered.

These policies are not limited to the months and years immediately after September 11, 2001. Most recently, after the terrorism attempt on board a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day 2009, the Transportation Security Administration issued a set of standards subjecting passengers traveling to the United States from 14 countries to heightened scrutiny screenings. These standards clear the way for the profiling of individuals based simply on their ethnicity, religion and country of origin. We know from studies of traffic stops and drug-related enforcement that racial profiling is not a useful means of identifying criminal behavior, and that relying upon behavior profiles might be more effective. In the case of the airport security standards implemented in January of this year, the government is again casting a wide net while relying upon the discretion of airport security staff to enforce the new guidelines with little, if any, oversight.

Almost ten years since September 11th, our country is still struggling to come to grips with the assumptions that lay behind Executive Order 9066. It is time for our country's leaders and policymakers to move away from misguided policies that lead to the targeting of communities for no reason other than the country from which they come or the religions they practice.
Nearly fifty years after the implementation of Executive Order 1066, Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 and acknowledged the grave injustices that were perpetrated on Japanese Americans during World War II.

Let's not wait fifty years to recognize the impact of post 9/11 policies on our communities and our country. The Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice and other civil rights components of federal government agencies can play important roles in reviewing and rescinding many of the policies implemented after 9/11. As we come up on the ten-year anniversary of September 11th in 2011, Congress and the President can lead the way towards national healing and a return to our country's fundamental values by supporting measures and practices that will acknowledge and rectify the injustices of the past ten years.

The movement towards national healing must begin now.

Cross-posted from Race-Talk.

Press Release: AAI, ADC and MPAC Meet with Attorney General Holder to Discuss Profiling; Encourage Engagement

2010-01-27T10:07:00.001-05:00

WASHINGTON – Tuesday, January 26—Executives of the Arab American Institute (AAI), American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), met with Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday (January 25) to discuss issues of concern to the Arab American and Muslim communities.

Leaders spoke with Attorney General Holder about several controversial policies developed under the 2003 Department of Justice Guidance on Profiling, which include several loopholes allowing for widespread profiling based on race, ethnicity, religion and national origin. Among the topics discussed were the 2008 Investigative Operational Guidelines (DIOGs), disclosures in the 2010 Inspector General Report on FBI data collection of identified “communities of interest”, the use of informants in terrorism cases, and the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), and PATRIOT Act reauthorization.

Representatives from the Arab American Institute (AAI), the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) stressed the importance of continued dialogue and additional efforts to promote partnerships between local communities and law enforcement.

James Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute (AAI) said: “It is the national security loophole in the 2003 Attorney General guidelines on profiling that has provided the legal cover for many of the policies put in place during the previous Administration, including the round ups of thousands of Arab and Muslim immigrants targeted for ‘special registration’ and the 2008 Mukasey guidelines for the FBI. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, profiling is ineffective, wastes precious law enforcement resources, and alienates American communities eager to assist in keeping our country safe and secure.”

Mary Rose Oakar, President of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), said: “We urged the Attorney General to repeal the 2008 Department of Justice FBIGuidelines that were put into effect in the last month of the Bush Administration and asked him to assist in repealing the NSEERS program, which targets young men from Arab and Muslim countries.”

Salam Al-Marayati, Executive Director of MPAC, said: “Problematic polices over the past 8 years have lead to a chilling effect in our community. We encourage the DOJ to address some of these very pertinent issues to ensure respect for the rule of law and security policies that work”

AAI, ADC, and MPAC appreciate the opportunity to address these concerns with Attorney General Holder and look forward to working with the Department of Justice on substantive policy reform.

Targeting Needles or Adding More Hay?: Airport Profiling, 'Countries of Interest', and American Security

2010-01-27T09:57:00.002-05:00

On January 11, the Arab American Institute hosted a Hill briefing where the Department of Homeland Security's newest changes in airport security were discussed.

The briefing included perspectives and recommendations from experts on national security, civil liberties, and the ethnic American experience and featured:

Michael German: Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Jumana Musa: Policy Director, Rights Working Group (RWG)

Amardeep Singh: Director of Programs and Advocacy, Sikh Coalition

Moderated by Dr. James Zogby: President, Arab American Institute

For more information and to watch the briefing, visit:

http://www.aaiusa.org/issues/4464/aai-hill-briefing-targeting-needles-or-adding-more-hay-airport-profiling-countries-of-interest-and-american-security

Profiling is back..!

2010-01-11T08:46:00.001-05:00

By Dr James J Zogby President Arab American Institute, Posted on » Monday, January 11, 2010 to Gulf Daily News

Airport profiling is back, with a vengeance. In the aftermath of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's failed effort to bring down Northwest Flight 253 on December 25, the White House swung into action. President Barack Obama addressed the nation on three separate occasions, and ordered two comprehensive reviews of policy and practices in an effort to determine what broke down in airport security and inter-agency intelligence co-operation. He also instituted a number of new (and not so new) directives designed to provide greater security.

Many of these directives were focused on ensuring that various intelligence and law enforcement agencies were working together, as had been mandated by post 9/11 reforms. The President and others in the administration were deeply troubled by reports of system wide inertia, and some bureaucratic resistance to change, that had left "dots" unconnected, allowing Abdulmuttab to board a plane to the US, unimpeded.

Eight years ago reforms were instituted so as to ensure such breakdowns in intelligence sharing did not occur again. Now the President, clearly upset by what he called an "unacceptable" breakdown, was insisting that it be done. This initiative was well received.

Not so well received, on the other hand, were reports that the administration had reinstated a form of country-specific airport profiling, targeting passengers travelling from, through, or holding passports from 14 countries (13 of which are majority Muslim, and Cuba). Early reports indicate that passengers from these countries are being singled out for intense secondary screening involving both discomfort and delay.

What is most troubling is not just the discriminatory intent behind this singling out of Muslim majority nations, and the inconvenience and resentment it will create among their citizens toward the US. More to the point is that profiling of this sort has been used, on at least two occasions in the past, and been found wanting.

In the mid-1990s the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implemented country-specific profiling and also subjective profiling (in which airport personnel singled out people who looked Arab or Muslim for pre-boarding screening). Thousands were harassed and in some cases humiliated with no net gain in security. When I testified before a Congressional committee investigating this practice and urged the committee to inquire from the FAA whether or not these practices had ever caught, detained or found suspicion of terrorist activities-the FAA was unable to provide evidence of even a single instance where the programme had produced a result.

Post 9/11, the Bush administration, under the leadership of then Attorney General John Ashcroft, put in place the National Special Entry and Exit Registration System (NSEERS), once again almost exclusively targeting Arab and Muslim immigrants and non-immigrant visitors to the US. Not a single terrorist was apprehended by this programme. What NSEERS did do, on the other hand, was make entry to the US more burdensome and unwelcoming, creating a clear sense among Muslims worldwide that they were being discriminated against.

The question that now should be posed to the Obama administration is "if airport profiling has been tried twice and failed, without contributing to making the country more secure, then why is it being reinstituted once again?"

For example, in its current manifestation, travellers from 14 countries will be targeted, with no provision made for travellers from countries not on the list. So, all Lebanese will be targeted, but Richard Reid (the failed "shoe bomber", who holds UK citizenship, will not be screened). Secondly, as the saying goes, "when looking for a needle in a haystack, adding hay to the stack only makes the job more difficult."

Discriminatory profiling of this sort damages national security in another way. If the purpose of Al Qaeda, in organising these attacks, is to create panic and deepen the divide between Muslims worldwide and the US, the resentment created by a massive profiling regime plays right into their hands.

What law enforcement professionals propose instead is "evidence-based, targeted, and narrowly tailored investigations based on individualised suspicion" - in other words, good old fashioned police work.

When the two reviews ordered by the President have been completed, and the gaps in intelligence sharing have been closed, a review of "profiling", its use and abuse, is in order.

ADC Statement Regarding New TSA Directives

2010-01-08T16:31:00.001-05:00

New TSA Guidelines Troubling and Ultimately Ineffective

Washington, D.C. | January 5, 2010 | www.adc.org |The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is deeply concerned by the new Transportation and Security Administration (TSA) directives, which went into effect on January 4th at midnight. According to news sources, these directives will require citizens from 14 countries, all Arab or Muslim countries, with the exception of Cuba, to go through enhanced security screening. Such screening can include full pat-downs, scans, delays, and anything associated with secondary screening - an extra search of the passenger's carry-on luggage may also be required. News sources also stated that the directives are applicable to any travelers, including US CITIZENS, who have passed through one of these 14 countries, or who have taken flights that have originated from these 14 countries.

ADC is very troubled as such directives will have negative ramifications on Arab-Americans, citizens of the 14 countries, and all Americans who visit these countries. A disparate segment of the Arab-American community will be scrutinized because of these new guidelines. The blanket labeling of hundreds of millions of civilians based solely on their country of citizenship or travel is not only unfairly discriminatory based on national origin, but also improperly labels millions of innocent people as somehow suspect or possible terrorists.

The new directives came following the Christmas Day attempted airline attack that threatened our national security, and which ADC has strongly condemned. Implementing an effective and productive counterterrorism tool is paramount. However, casting a wide net against individuals based on their country of origin, race or religion is not an effective counterterrorism tool. During the past decade, similar racial, ethnic and religious profiling tactics and practices have time and again misdirected precious counterterrorism resources, damaged foreign relations with key allies, fueled the fires of extremists by giving them an excuse, stigmatized communities, and most importantly did not have any discernible impact on security. Based on precedent, these new directives will be no different than these past practices and their adverse consequences; and while such directives may appear to make us feel safer, the reality is that they discriminate against innocent persons and divert attention from real threats.

Resources must instead be focused on high-risk individuals based on proper intelligence, better coordination and communication between different governmental agencies. In addition, continued engagement with the Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian community groups must be strengthened, and must not be discouraged by ethnic profiling tactics.

ADC has been in contact with TSA and the Department Homeland Security (DHS) and is planning to file a complaint and request for additional information with the Department. ADC urges all travelers affected by these new guidelines to always comply with the Transportation Security Officer's (TSO's) request. In the event of any abuse or misuse of authority, please request the TSO's name and badge number, and file a complaint with ADC's Legal Department at legal@adc.org.

Politico Article Draws Ties Between New TSA Security Measures and NSEERS

2010-01-07T14:03:00.002-05:00

TSA's echoes of Ashcroft

The U.S. government's announcement Sunday that it would impose stricter airport security on citizens of 14 "nations that are state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest" probably wasn't intended as a homage to former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

But strident critics of Ashcroft and even some of his associates said the Obama administration's move bore strong parallels to the "special registration" or NSEERS (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System) program President George W. Bush's first attorney general ordered beginning in 2002, which required male nationals of what eventually became 25 countries who were working, visiting or living in the U.S. to report to immigration authorities for fingerprinting and interviews. Critics of the program said it failed to nab any terrorists, while about 14,000 of the men were put into deportation proceedings.

Critics contend that the focus on national origin in both programs is simply a proxy for religion. In the Ashcroft immigration program, 24 of the 25 countries were predominantly Muslim. (The exception was North Korea.) In the new airline security program, 13 of the 14 affected countries are largely Muslim. (The exception is Cuba.)

"There are a lot of eerie similarities," said Nawar Shora of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. "This takes millions of people and frankly labels them for the general public. ... You're telling broader society it's OK to treat them different because they are different. Because we have one 23-year-old Nigerian do something very dangerous and stupid, 100 million Nigerians are going to be labeled?"

"There are some similarities," said Michael Sullivan, who took over as the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts days after Sept. 11. "I think the president is doing the right thing by tightening security requirements coming from certain countries where you have your potential greatest risk. It only makes sense from a law enforcement, national security perspective that you focus in on where the greatest risk potentially is coming from. ... Attorney General [Ashcroft] was trying to do the exact same thing in a climate of great risk of further terrorist attacks."

For its part, the Transportation Security Administration denies that the new effort amounts to profiling. "TSA does not profile," spokeswoman Sarah Horowitz said. "As is always the case, TSA security measures are based on threat, not ethnic or religious background."

Of course, the two programs are not entirely identical. The TSA 14-countries program involves a brief search that many passengers who aren't from the designated countries will also be subject to. The "special registration" program took hours and sometimes days for people to complete and often wound up with the registrant, who came forward in good faith, being imprisoned and/or deported.

"From a detention perspective, I suppose [the TSA program] is not as bad. ... It's not as severe. Just an extra pat-down, extra scanning, but the messaging — the labeling — is equivalent," said Shora.

While the hue and cry over special registration was loud and sustained, the early reaction to the TSA 14-countries program was more muted. However, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Muslim Advocates are all publicly questioning the wisdom of the new approach. So, too, have some terrorism analysts and scholars.

"I see it as a do-something, do-anything response," said Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University. "There is probably a greater threat of Western nationals being co-opted by Al Qaeda. This'll do nothing against them."

"I think this is an ill-considered response that'll do more harm to the United States than it does good," said Edward Alden of the Council on Foreign Relations. "That's a crude sort of measure that is going to alienate a lot of people who are otherwise friendly to the United States."

Some said the new TSA measure will probably do some good but is far from a major enhancement of security. "You can argue that the bad guys will just find more Richard Reids who carry British passports and have Western names, but at least you force them to work a little harder if you don't allow someone named Mohammed from Yemen to get on an airplane without going through secondary screening," said a former senior intelligence official who asked not to be named. "You could also argue that it you make it difficult for people from some of these countries to get on airplanes, they might complain about it to their government, and you'll have a clampdown there on Al Qaeda."

However, the ex-official said, there is little doubt that the tactic amounts to religious and ethnic profiling. "They wont call it that, but, sure, that's what it is," the former official said.

Even TSA's use of the term "countries of interest" evokes one of Ashcroft's most famous phrases, "person of interest." Ashcroft used that construction in TV interviews and a news conference to describe Dr. Stephen Hatfill's connection to an investigation into the anthrax attacks in 2001. In 2008, the U.S. government later paid Hatfill $5.8 million to settle a Privacy Act lawsuit claiming that his reputation was damaged by Ashcroft and other officials. Hatfill was never charged in the attacks. The government's investigative focus eventually moved to another scientist, Bruce Ivins, who killed himself after learning he was about to be indicted in the case.

Posted by Josh Gerstein
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0110/TSAs_echoes_of_Ashcroft.html#

NY Times Article Concerning NSEERS

2009-12-16T10:20:00.000-05:00

Church Works With U.S. to Spare Detention
By NINA BERNSTEIN
December 13, 2009

HIGHLAND PARK, N.J. — When the young pastor started his ministry here at the century-old Reformed Church in 2001, he gave little thought to the separate congregation of Indonesian Christians who shared the sanctuary. They worshiped quietly in their own language on Sunday afternoons, at the end of a hard week’s work in the factories and warehouses of central New Jersey.

But by May 2006, when they began pleading to sleep at the church, the pastor, the Rev. Seth Kaper-Dale, had to pay attention. At the apartment complex where many Indonesians lived, armed federal immigration agents in a single night had rounded up 35 men with expired visas and outstanding deportation orders, as their wives and children cried and other families hid.

Suddenly a prosperous suburban congregation was confronted with the labyrinthine world of immigration law and detention. This year, when one of its own leaders, an Indonesian, was detained for months, only the pastor’s passionate, last-ditch efforts saved him from deportation. And the church reached a new level of activism — with extraordinary results.

Under an unusual compact between the pastor and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in Newark, four Indonesians have been released from detention in recent weeks, and 41 others living as fugitives from deportation have turned themselves in under church auspices. Instead of being jailed — as hundreds of thousands of immigrants without criminal records have been in recent years — they have been released on orders of supervision, eligible for work permits while their lawyers consider how their cases might be reopened.

Though agency officials say the arrangement is simply an example of the case-by-case discretion they often use, the outcome has astonished advocates and experts in immigration enforcement, and raised hopes that it signals some broader use of humanitarian release as the Obama administration vows to overhaul the immigration system.

Still, for those who turn themselves in, the leap of faith carries big risks. For now, they can check in at a federal office every three months and, if granted a work permit, can secure a driver’s license. But they are also vulnerable to immediate deportation. Just this fall, nine Indonesian Christians in Seattle who had been on supervised release for years were abruptly detained, and some were deported.

The immigration agency issues about 10,000 orders of supervision annually, but they typically involve people who cannot be deported for practical reasons, like a homeland that will not take them back. The agency detains roughly 380,000 people a year.

“I’m totally on uncharted waters,” Mr. Kaper-Dale, 34, a Vermont native who shares the pulpit with his wife, Stephanie, said in October as he began seeking volunteers willing to place themselves in the government’s hands, from about 200 candidates not only at his church, but at several other New Jersey congregations.

The first ones to step up had to overcome fear born of experience.

“Very, very scary,” said Augus Alex Assa, 46, who fought tears as his 5-year-old daughter, Christia Celine, clung to him in the van from the church, in Middlesex County, to an immigration enforcement unit in Newark. “In my heart, I hope I will stay in the United States.”

Like most of the Indonesians, Mr. Assa and his wife, Grace, came on tourist visas that were suddenly easy for poor people to get in the 1990s, when a booming economy welcomed foreign labor with a wink and a nod. Everything changed after 9/11, when a government directive required the “special registration” of men ages 16 to 65 who had entered the country on temporary visas from a list of predominantly Muslim countries, including Indonesia. If they did not register, it was understood, they would be considered terrorist fugitives.

Most of the Indonesian Christians complied, on the advice of pastors. They hoped that honesty would open a path to legal status rather than deportation to their homeland, where many had faced discrimination and sectarian violence.

Instead, their appeals for asylum were denied in most cases, some through inattention by inept or overburdened lawyers. And those who registered became easy targets when national immigration politics demanded a crackdown.

During the 2006 raid, Mr. Assa hid in a closet when immigration agents came to the door, as his wife covered their daughter’s mouth. For two weeks afterward, they and others slept at the church.

About 50 men were eventually deported, typically after lengthy stays in immigration jails, leaving wives struggling to support American-born children. “We were shocked, but we were kind of paralyzed,” the pastor said.

On Jan. 12, the detention of one of their own spurred the congregation to action. Harry Pangemanan, a popular Bible study leader, was picked up by immigration agents as he left for work as a warehouse supervisor. He and his wife, Mariyana, parents of two American-born daughters, were the only Indonesians among the 300 people in the main congregation.

Church members organized daily visits to the detention center, a 40-minute drive away in Elizabeth, N.J., while the pastor appealed to Congressional and immigration offices. When Mr. Pangemanan reached out with his Bible to fellow detainees, the congregation visited them, too. Appalled to find asylum-seekers behind barbed wire and plexiglass, they began holding vigils outside the center, run for profit by the Corrections Corporation of America.

Some church members resisted. “As a construction worker who is directly affected by immigration, it’s very hard,” said Rich Lord, 39. “I felt like, they’re taking my jobs away.”

But his union and his faith changed his mind, he said: “There’s pregnant women so desperate in Mexico that they’re willing to cross the desert so their child will be born in the United States. And as a Christian, I have to remember that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had to flee their homeland.”

Then, at 5 a.m. on March 31, came bad news: Mr. Pangemanan was being put on a plane to Indonesia. The pastor threw on his clerical collar and ran through Newark Liberty International Airport in a frantic search for the right gate, determined to pray with his friend before he was sent away.

By the time the pastor found the flight, the passengers had already boarded. As he tells the story, he prayed at the gate, so visibly upset that an airline worker let him on the plane.

Mr. Pangemanan was in the last row between two immigration agents — bound not for Jakarta but for a detention center in Tacoma, Wash. — when he saw his pastor coming down the aisle. An astonished agent asked, “How did this guy get in here?”

“And I just put my finger up,” Mr. Pangemanan recalled, pointing heavenward.

The agents let them pray briefly; the pastor said goodbye but vowed to keep trying. Back at the church, he phoned every number on the immigration agency’s Web site.

He still cherishes the recording of the only message that came back, from Dora B. Schriro, who has since left the agency but was then special detention adviser to Janet Napolitano, secretary of homeland security. Within a week of their conversation, Mr. Pangemanan was back in New Jersey with his family, his case under reconsideration by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

When immigration agents arrested several more Indonesian men in late September, church leaders took their effort to a new level, meeting with Scott Weber, director of the detention and removal field office in New Jersey, and agency envoys from Washington.

David J. Venturella, acting director of the agency’s national detention and removal operations, said he approved the discussions. “We encourage all of our field office directors to exercise prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis,” he said. “This is a perfect example.”

Mr. Weber rejected the ministers’ proposal for a church-run alternative to detention, but offered his own: In groups of 5 or 10, twice a week, the church could bring in the Indonesians they vouched for, and lawyers committed to the lengthy process of seeking their full case files.

Unless something was amiss — a hidden criminal conviction, a false address — the former fugitives could walk out the same day. Even before the details were arranged, Mr. Weber released four recent Indonesian detainees, one a Muslim.

Amy Gottlieb, immigrant rights director for the American Friends Service Committee in New Jersey, who has been dealing with the field office since 1996, called it “an amazing moment.”

“One, you just never believe that ICE is going to work with you on anything, given the history,” she said. “And given the intensive arrest efforts for the last two or three years, it’s hard to believe that people are ready to recognize that every single case has a human angle.”

Rex Chen, the supervising lawyer at Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Newark, remains more pessimistic, likening himself to a financial adviser who warns, “This mutual fund could collapse.”

While the arrangement may buy the Indonesians a year or two, he said, unless grounds are found to reopen their cases, or Congress changes immigration law, they could find “they just moved up from not known, to on the list, to you’re taking the steps up to the airplane.”

There are no guarantees, acknowledged Melinda Basaran, another participating lawyer and chairwoman of the New Jersey chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. But many of the Indonesian wives, who did not have to register after 9/11, will soon have been here 10 years without drawing official attention, making them eligible to apply for green cards.

The more pressing question is who is included in the supervised release, said Joan Pinnock, another lawyer involved. Word of mouth has brought calls from Washington State, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, where many Indonesians fled after the New Jersey raid — and where their detention and deportation continues unabated. But Newark immigration authorities have ruled out their return to New Jersey.

“I would love to get this for my Jamaican clients,” Ms. Pinnock said, echoing others who pointed to different groups, like the many Muslims affected by special registration.

On a recent Wednesday night, in a church meeting room hung with the quilts of four generations of grandmothers, fathers restored to their families thanked God and the congregation.

“I’m proud of my church,” Mr. Pangemanan said. “Not just the pastor, the whole church.”

Dec 7 Request to DHS and DOS for the Termination of NSEERS

2009-12-08T15:30:00.000-05:00

Dear Secretary Clinton and Secretary Napolitano:

We are writing to request that your departments terminate the National Security Entry‐Exit Registration System (NSEERS). Implemented in the wake of September 11, 2001, NSEERS required non‐immigrant males from predominantly Muslim‐majority countries to register at ports of entry and at local immigration offices‐‐where they were fingerprinted, photographed, and subjected to lengthy questioning. Although certain registration requirements have been suspended,1 noncompliance with the program can still subject individuals to severe penalties.2 Among others,3 such individuals include those who were in the process of adjusting their status to become U.S. lawful permanent residents, but were denied adjustment because they did not register due to lack of knowledge or fear of the program or due to late registration;4 and those who were removed from the U.S. when they registered, though they had families and/or pending immigration benefits applications in the U.S.

Foreign Policy Implications

NSEERS has damaged your departments’ outreach efforts to our nation’s foreign allies and to Arab‐American, Muslim American and South Asian‐American communities in the United States. The very structure of the program ‐ explicitly targeting males based on their religion, national origin and nationality ‐ reinforced the perception that Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians were being targeted by the United States.5 From a foreign policy perspective, NSEERS left an unfortunate but lasting imprint. Many of our close allies were “opposed to having their nationals subject to NSEERS registration.”6 Moreover, fewer visitors from NSEERS countries are coming to the United States, even as travel has largely recovered from most countries in the world to near pre‐9/11 levels.7 This has meant that significantly fewer Arab and Muslim visitors are having “the opportunity to observe first hand the unique nature of American democracy and freedom and [returning] to their countries as good‐will ambassadors for the U.S.”8 However, good‐will ambassadors rate the United States approximately 25 to 30 percentage points more favorably than those who have not visited the U.S.9 Increasing the number of tourist, business and student visitors from these countries would help to break down misconceptions about the U.S., enhance our national security, and fuel the economy.

Domestic Impact and Costs

Domestically, NSEERS was created as a counterterrorism tool. However, there is no clear evidence that NSEERS has made our nation any safer, a conclusion reached in a thorough investigation by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.10 Additionally, profiles of individuals currently impacted by NSEERS indicate that the program has not focused on high‐risk individuals.11 With counterterrorism being one of the top priorities for the Department of Homeland Security, we strongly recommend that scarce resources be focused on high‐risk individuals and not on NSEERS registrants, many of whom have no criminal backgrounds, have very strong equities in our nation, and have made significant contributions to their communities. The costs incurred with NSEERS have far outweighed any counterterrorism benefits. For instance, the haphazard treatment of late NSEERS registrants has been very costly not only for the individuals but for both the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security.12

Conclusion and Recommendations

We believe that the continuing problems with NSEERS can only be remedied by terminating the program and providing reprieve for well‐intentioned individuals impacted by NSEERS.13 Terminating the program would go a long way towards improving public diplomacy efforts with the Arab and Muslim worlds; ensuring that potential U.S. citizens impacted by the residual effects of NSEERS are provided relief so that they are capable of enriching our great nation as future Arab‐ Americans, Muslim‐Americans and South Asian‐Americans; and in signaling a shift away from ineffective policies that involve racial and religious profiling. Recent developments have suggested a growing momentum for finally resolving the issues created by NSEERS.14 We urge you to end this ineffective program.

Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this letter. If you have any questions, please contact Nawar Shora, Legal Director at the American‐ Arab Anti‐Discrimination Committee and Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Clinical Professor and Director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights at Penn State Dickinson School of Law.

Sincerely,
American‐Arab Anti‐Discrimination Committee (ADC)
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)
Arab American Institute (AAI)
National Immigration Forum (NIF)
Rights Working Group (RWG)
South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT)
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Clinical Professor and Director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Penn State Dickinson School of Law15

Endnotes
1 Department of Homeland Security, Suspending the 30‐Day and Annual Interview Requirements from the Special Registration Process for Certain Nonimmigrants, 68 Fed. Reg. 67578 (Dec. 2, 2003).
2 See id.; see also Immigration and Naturalization Service, Registration of Certain Nonimmigrant Aliens from Designated Countries, 67 Fed. Reg. 67766 (Nov. 6, 2002) (“A willful failure to comply with the requirements of this Notice constitutes a failure to maintain nonimmigrant status under section 237 (a)(1)(C)(i) of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act”).
3 See the American‐Arab Anti‐Discrimination Comm. and the Ctr. for Immigrations’ Rights at Penn State Dickinson School of Law, NSEERS: The Consequences of America’s Efforts to Secure Its Borders 6‐7 (2009), http://www.adc.org/PDF/nseerspaper.pdf.
4 Some individuals did not register as there was a “lack of awareness by the public and affected communities about the NSEERS rule and the remaining requirements.” Moreover, “whether the government’s release of special registration through publications in the Federal Register constitutes adequate notice” is still in question. See id. at 20.
5 See Department of Homeland Security, Roundtable on Security and Liberty: Perspectives of Young Leaders Post-9/11 Washington, D.C.: Report For Government Officials and Policy Makers, http://www.dhs.gov/xcitizens/gc_1249420143090.shtm (last visited Dec. 6, 2009) (Young leaders from the Post‐9/11 communities believe that “NSEERS […] disproportionately target[s] their communities.”).
6 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Staff Report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel 159 (2004),
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Monograph.pdf.
7 See Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Immigration Policy 25 (Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. 2009), available at http://www.cfr.org/publication/20030/ (For instance, “in 2008, the number of visas issued to nationals of Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jordan, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia remained well below their pre‐9/11 levels, in some cases half or less.”).
8 Letter from the Senators Durbin and Feingold, and late Senator Kennedy to the Honorable Tom Ridge, January 23, 2004.
9 See Council on Foreign Relations, supra note 7, at 24.
10 See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, supra note 6, at 157‐60.
11 See the American‐Arab Anti‐Discrimination Comm. and the Ctr. for Immigrations’ Rights at Penn State Dickinson School of Law, supra note 3, at 25‐26.
12 Posting of Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia to Race Matters blog,
http://endnseers.blogspot.com/2009/11/commentary‐on‐late‐nseers‐registration.html (Nov. 19, 2009) (“This wastes precious EOIR resources, and moreover reflects a poor judgment or failure of DHS to exercise prosecutorial discretion prudently and favorably toward individuals who present strong equities.”).
13 See the American‐Arab Anti‐Discrimination Comm. and the Ctr. for Immigrations’ Rights at Penn State Dickinson School of Law, supra note 3, at 38‐39.
14 See Press Release, American‐Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, Office of Inspector General at DHS to Audit NSEERS at the Request of ADC and Other Major Organizations (Nov. 19, 2009),
http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=3524 ; see also Robert Bonner & Edward Alden, The Wrong Way to Screen Visitors, Wash. Post, Nov. 21, 2009, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112003375_pf.html.
15 Affiliation listed for informational purposes only.

NSEERS: Wrong Then, Still Wrong Now -- Submitted by Priya Murthy, SAALT

2009-12-08T11:29:00.000-05:00

Mohammad Sarfaraz Hussain

Mohammad Sarfaraz Hussain of Queens, New York, was an 18-year-old Pakistani immigrant who came to New York at age seven to visit his mother who was dying of cancer. Shortly after his mother died, his father in Pakistan passed away just as they were on the verge of getting their immigration papers. Having no family left in Pakistan, Mohammad stayed in Queens with his uncle for more than a decade. Mohammad became a popular high school athlete with goals of attending college and playing professional basketball. In 2003, however, his life changed after he complied with NSEERS. Upon registering, he was ordered to be deported. Mohammad was due to appear before an immigration judge, when Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York, fortunately, intervened and urged for dismissing the deportation case. As a result, Mohammad was permitted to remain in the United States. While Mohammad was one of the lucky ones, thousands of others faced another fate in deportation proceedings. (Story featured in the film “Whose Children Are These?”)

Mr. A.

Originally from Pakistan, Mr. A. was a legally blind elderly gentleman who resided in Brooklyn. He came to the United States to seek medical treatment for his blindness and was living here for over ten years. He subsequently overstayed his visa and became undocumented. Then, in the winter of 2003, he learned of NSEERS at a town hall meeting with government officials. At the meeting, he was encouraged to register and learned that this may legalize his status. Subsequently, Mr. A. appeared for NSEERS and, to his surprise, was detained by immigration officials due to his status. During his detention he was held in a highly air-conditioned room in winter, told to remove his warm clothing, and has his passport confiscated. Lacking any identification or immigration status, Mr. A. was unable to obtain necessary medical treatment for his eyes. Following his detention, he was placed in removal proceedings. (Story collected by one of SAALT’s community partner organizations in New York City)

Abu Hasan Mahmud Parvez

Abu Hasan Mahmud Parvez is a native and citizen of Bangladesh who entered the United States on a diplomatic visa and was later granted a student visa. He then married a Bangladeshi woman, who was in the process of applying for a green card, and together they had a United States citizen son. However, Parvez was placed in removal proceedings due to a visa overstay, even after complying with NSEERS. (Story featured in “NSEERS: The Consequences of America’s Efforts to the Secure Its Borders” report)

The impact is clear and it is time to terminate the program and reassess what the costs were – in terms of dollars and cents, loss of community trust, and the devastating impact on individuals and families. South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), along with many other organizations, welcomes the recent announcement of the audit of NSEERS by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General. From the lack of efficacy as the counter-terrorism tool it was purported to be to the high volume of deportations resulting from minor immigration violations, this program has long deserved closer scrutiny and accountability. While the details of the audit's parameters are yet to be seen, we look forward to seeing a full accounting of the program and the members of the South Asians, Arab and Muslim community members it has affected.

Priya Murthy is the Policy Director at South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), a national, nonprofit organization that amplifies the voices and perspectives of South Asians in national policy dialogues, and strengthens the leadership of South Asian organizations and individuals. SAALT also coordinates the National Coalition of South Asian Organizations (NCSO), a network of 39 community-based organizations that serve, organize, and advocate on behalf of South Asians around the country on various issues, including NSEERS.

NSEERS Story Submitted by J. Doe, November 2009

2009-12-02T16:25:00.000-05:00

I first entered the US on an F-1 visa in January 2000. I did my Masters degree in Computer Science at Michigan State University, and I got my degree in May 2001. A few weeks before graduation I accepted an employment offer at Microsoft Corp. in Redmond, WA. After graduation I worked for about a year on my F-1 visa according to the optional practical training program, then I applied for my first H-1B visa.

Due to all the immigration policy changes that came into effect after September 2001 I had to get my H-1 B visa stamp from my country of origin (Egypt). I went to Egypt on vacation in July 2002, and I applied for the visa stamp at the U.S. Consulate in Cairo a few days after my arrival. At that point I had been living in the US for about 2 years and a half, but still the background check process took about 4 months. Of course I couldn't go back to the US until I got the visa stamp in November 2002. Fortunately I was able to work remotely from the Microsoft office in Cairo for those 4 months.

Almost three years later my visa was about to expire and I had to apply for a new one. Again I applied for that visa while on vacation in Egypt in September 2005. I was thrilled to get that visa in less than a week. However, that same visa was cancelled a few days later by an immigration officer at the SeaTac airport because of an NSEERS violation.

I was aware that being an Egyptian citizen I had to register at an immigration office every time I had to leave the US. I did it only once, and the whole experience was too r[i]diculous that I decided not to register before departure again. Putting the obvious discriminatory nature of the NSEERS program aside, the immigration officers didn't know how to use the system, the system was too slow and the officers were kind of surprised when I showed up to register. Of course I had no choice when it came to registering at arrival time. That day in early October 2005 I arrived at the SeaTac airport after a very long trip, and I had to wait for about an hour for an immigration officer to go through the NSEERS regist[]ration process. It took the officer about one more hour to figure out that I didn't register on my way out of the US, and that according to the US immigration law I was not admiss[i]ble to the US. I was too tired to complain, so I stayed calm and decided to fly to any Canadian city (I had a valid Canadian visa) to spend the night and contact Microsoft to see if this problem can be resolved. However, the immigration officer told me I had to fly back to Cairo and not anywhere else, but I insisted on my right to go wherever I want. After a few hours of negotiations and t[e]dious paperwork, the officer allowed me to enter the US with a 2-week parole document (after my US visa was cancelled). I was finally able to leave the airport after about 9 hours of the arrival of my flight.

When I got home I contacted my boss and told him the whole story and that I can't come to work because I am not eligible to work while on that parole status. The following day Microsoft hired me an immigration lawyer who spent about an hour with me and heard the story. He contacted the immigration office at SeaTac later that day and got all the legal details he wanted from them. The following day he called me and told me all I had to do is to stand in front of an immigration judge and promise not to violate NSEERS anymore. The only other alternative was to leave the US by the end of the parole period.

I thought about the whole situation overnight. I had a promising career, lots of friends and many great memories in the US, but being treated as a “high risk individual” only because of where I come from was an insult that I couldn't accept. Even worse, that same federal government that thinks I'm a threat happily takes tens of thousands of dollars from my paycheck every year in income taxes. The following day I called my lawyer and told him I will quit my job, pack and leave.

My career was interrupted for a few months, but eventually things went back on track. I currently live and work in Canada, and I never regret my decision to leave the US. I am sure NSEERS will be cancelled one day, if not because of its shameful discriminatory nature then because it is a big waste of time and money. Only then I will be able to drive to the Michi[g]an State campus (which is about 3 hours from where I currently live) and relive the great memories I had there.

The Momentum re. the Termination of NSEERS Is Growing

2009-11-21T14:51:00.000-05:00

We would like to share with you today's Washington Post Op-ed on NSEERS. Co-authored by former CBP Commissioner Robert Bonner and National Security expert and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations Edward Alden, the Op-ed also mentions the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General's NSEERS audit to be conducted in early January 2010. Moreover, the Op-ed provides reasons as to why NSEERS needs to be abolished from a national security standpoint and perspective.

Below is the full text:

The wrong way to screen visitors

By Robert Bonner and Edward Alden
Saturday, November 21, 2009

Is traveling to the United States a "harrowing experience," as a Pakistani delegate to the International Olympic Committee claimed when the IOC rejected Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Games? The vast majority of the 25 million visitors arriving from overseas at U.S. airports each year experience no more than an inconvenience. But for hundreds of thousands, including Pakistanis such as the IOC delegate, it can be both difficult and unpleasant.

Men from Pakistan and two dozen other countries face onerous "special registration" procedures under the National Security Entry-Exit System set up after Sept. 11, 2001. While this was an understandable precaution in the aftermath of the attacks, more precise and effective measures have since been developed. The Department of Homeland Security inspector general agreed this week to audit the program, which was already under high-level review at the State Department. The Obama administration should promptly eliminate the program.

The Justice Department launched the system in 2002 to scrutinize the group thought to present the highest risk -- men from countries where al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups have a presence. Most visitors to the States are interviewed only by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer who inspects their passport. The men in the group, however, are automatically pulled aside for "secondary inspection" and are often kept waiting for hours. Even those who have visited the United States multiple times, or live here on work or student visas, are subject to detailed questioning and searches before being allowed to enter the country.

Further, these men can leave the country only through designated airports where the federal government has set up exit controls. Failure to "check out" through these airports could result in an individual being barred from returning or emigrating.

Faced with such obstacles, many men from these countries have given up on coming to the United States. While the number of visits from overseas had nearly rebounded to pre-Sept. 11 levels before the recession, travel from Muslim countries remains sharply depressed. This widens the gulf between the United States and the Islamic world, which further inhibits U.S. efforts to counter extremist propaganda in some regions. Meanwhile, surveys in Arab countries have found that favorability toward the United States is 25 to 30 percent higher among those who have traveled to the States or have a relative living here.

The special-registration program has also soured U.S. relations with some friendly countries. Indonesia, the largest majority-Muslim country, was outraged to be included in the program despite showing strong support for the United States after the 2001 attacks. Today, the number of visitors from Indonesia is about half that of a decade ago.

Such costs would be worth it if the program proved effective in stopping or deterring terrorists from entering the country. But the 9/11 Commission found no evidence of this, and none has been offered since.

U.S. border screening procedures have improved tremendously in recent years, which further diminishes the value of the special-registration program. Now, all visitors who require visas -- including citizens from the countries requiring "special registration" -- are interviewed by U.S. consular officers and fingerprinted. The prints are checked again by Customs and Border Protection upon the traveler's arrival in the States.

Airlines must provide detailed information on all arriving passengers, giving customs officials hours to run names through the agency's automated risk assessment system. That's much better than having 60 seconds at the primary inspection kiosk. These names are checked against the terrorist watch list and are scrutinized for various intelligence-driven indicators of potential terrorist threat. Those deemed potential threats are subject to secondary counterterrorism questioning by specially trained border officers.

These more careful methods are effective. Raed al-Banna, a young man with no history of terrorist links, was pulled aside at Chicago's O'Hare airport in 2003 after the computer targeting system identified him as deserving additional scrutiny. After questioning he was refused entry and sent back to Jordan; two years later, he killed 132 people in a suicide car bombing in Iraq.

We know that terrorist groups are recruiting in Europe and have sought to train female operatives. A program that pulls aside only men from Muslim countries is not the sophisticated response required to counter such efforts. Further, eliminating the program would in no way restrict U.S. border officials' authority to question and search anyone; it would simply end the automatic scrutiny of a certain class of individuals.

As the United States continues the struggle against terrorism, it should constantly evaluate the best tools at hand. Special registration is not one of these, and it should be abolished.

Robert Bonner, the first commissioner of Customs and Border Protection at the Department of Homeland Security, is senior principal at Sentinel HS Group, a Vienna-based homeland-security consulting firm. Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, was project director for the recent Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy.

UPDATE: DHS OIG to Audit NSEERS

2009-11-20T16:47:00.000-05:00

There are some new positive developments that we would like to share: the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it will conduct an audit on NSEERS in early January 2010. For more information, please view ADC's press release on the issue: http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=3524.

Commentary on Late NSEERS Registration from Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Penn State Law’s Center for Immigrants’ Rights:

2009-11-19T12:57:00.000-05:00

Since the ADC and Penn State Law's Center for Immigrants' Rights report, last March, we have continued to engage the agency, advocates, and the public about ongoing concerns with the NSEERS program. Recent anecdotes from practitioners suggest a continuing disparity from region to region regarding late registration. Some of these stories are featured below. In some regions, men continue to be placed into removal proceedings based on their "failure" to register. This wastes precious EOIR resources, and moreover reflects a poor judgment or failure of DHS to exercise prosecutorial discretion prudently and favorably toward individuals who present strong equities. In other regions, late registrants are not being placed into removal proceedings but instead are being required to undergo an interview and exchange dense correspondence with ICE and/or USCIS in order to be "cleared" for late registration. In some cases, local USCIS offices continue to misinterpret any noncompliance with registration as a "willful" failure to register, thereby subjecting individuals to immigration and criminal-related penalties. In some cases, this means that individuals who are employed in the United States and/or married to a United States Citizen are being denied green cards based on a “failure” to register. The foregoing problems are not just related to poor discretion and burdensome agency costs, but in fact reflect a damaging domestic and foreign policy that can only be remedied by terminating the NSEERS program and providing reprieve for well intentioned individuals impacted by the program. In the short term, DHS, DOJ and DOS must ensure that prosecutorial and adjudicatory discretion are favorably exercised toward individuals who are eligible for a current or future immigration benefit, but who may have not complied with an NSEERS requirement. Similarly, DHS must discontinue branding would-be green card holders with a "willful failure to register" without justification or foundation. Finally, DHS must modify or repeal the various NSEERS-related memos that conflict with the spirit and language of the Meissner memo on prosecutorial discretion. Special thanks to attorneys Malea Kiblan and Denyse Sabagh for assisting with collecting the stories shared below.

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

Redacted Email from Denyse Sabagh, November 16, 2009:

“I am writing to you to advise you of a Late Registration interview I had a couple of weeks ago, October 29, 2009 which makes the case as to why it doesn’t work and why unjust decisions are made. It also points out very effectively why NSEERS Registration needs to go.

My client had a deportation hearing in October, 2009. The Judge was going to grant adjustment based upon an I-130 USC approved spouse petition and I-485. They have a young child. However, because the trial attorney kept pushing on the fact that my client didn’t register, the judge said we needed to register and gave us until Dec. to register him. My client had not received the letter from CIS during the adjustment process requesting proof of late registration.

I called ICE about coming in for a late registration interview. I asked if they wanted his A # or needed information. They said no, just come in. We got to ICE, Sterling, Va. about 9 am. We waited about 45 minutes. We were then called in. The first question asked was - where is the CIS letter requesting late registration. We advised he didn’t get one. He was then asked questions such as what was the purpose of your visit, do you go to religious services, do you read the newspapers, or listen to the radio. He was asked why he didn’t register. He stated that he did not know about it and didn’t know what it was. He had just turned 17 when he entered the US in June, 2002. He was in high school, barely spoke English and was in a valid V-2 status. His family didn’t speak much English at the time, were not involved in the community and didn’t know about Registration. Registration started for Jordanians in Feb. 2003, I believe. He was asked about what he had done since high school, what he is doing now, marital status, phone numbers etc. I provided a copy of my pleading file to the agents along with copies of applications and approval notices. They advised they needed to check some things and to come back at about 11:15 am.

We came back at 11:15 and were advised that a meeting had been called so we needed to wait. After about 45 minutes – 1 hour, we were called back in. They advised they would fingerprint him and photograph him. I advised I wanted to be present for the rest of the interview. I waited about 10 minutes and knocked on the door. I advised that I wanted to be present. I was advised it was their policy that lawyers could not be present. I explained that I had represented many NSEERS registrants and that lawyers were always allowed to be present. In addition, lawyers were allowed to be present at late registrations. He checked with his supervisor, returned and let me in. This time [the] supervisor was also present. No sooner was I inside, they said they were going to stamp “willful failure” to register in his passport. I was surprised given the fact that he was in status, the clarity, detail, consistency of his answers and his minority. I asked why. They said they were following their guidelines. I asked what those guidelines were. He sent one of the agents out. He returned with the Group IV registration instructions for the initial registration period. I explained that these were just instructions for the initial registration. They relied on them to prove that he knew he was supposed to register and didn’t. It made no sense. I explained again that this young man had no reason not to register, he was in valid status, had just turned 17, didn’t speak English, was trying to deal with a new high school in the US and had he known about Registration, he would have registered. The agents said it was no excuse. They said absent catastrophic illness or jail, there was not a valid excuse. I explained that is not a correct standard. They had to determine if it was “willful.” They said that no one would be a “willful” violator if all they had to say was they didn’t know. I explained that each person was judged on his own circumstances. I also explained that I recently had taken [his] brother in to change his “willful failure” to “regist[er]” under the same circumstances and it was granted. They said they couldn’t speak to that (even though [the supervisor] is one of the agents with whom I spoke). I was adamant that I didn’t want a “willful failure stamp” as there was no reason why this young man shouldn’t be granted adjustment. The supervisor said they would only stamp [h]is passport with willful failure if they did it that day. He offered to talk to District Counsel and have us come back. He said we would hear from him in 2 weeks. That was last Friday, November 13. To date, we have not heard from them. I have left messages for a Deputy Special Agent in Charge in Fairfax and have had no responses.”

BUFFALO, NEW YORK

Email from Sophie Feal, November 2, 2009:

“In the past few years, I‘ve done two of these with success in Buffalo, NY. They found the failure [to register] was not willful (I had thoroughly briefed it and attached a sworn affidavit), then reg’d the person, then granted the 485 [Adjustment of Status].”

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

Email from Paul Soreff, October 30, 2009:

“Here in Seattle the way it has worked is that if it comes up during the interview, the AOS [Adjustment of Status] case is put on hold to allow the person to go to ICE to late register. There they have a very simple process and accept the registration and then the AOS goes forward. I have done this a couple of time[s] in the past (more than 1 yr ago) for folks. However I believe the process may be different now since I think I heard that the local ICE office no longer has folks to do the registration. So other attorneys here may have more current info.”

CHICAGO, IL

Excerpt from ADC-Penn State Report NSEERS: The Consequences of America’s Efforts to Secure Its Borders, March 31, 2009:

“Mr. Nasser, a native of Morocco, came to the United States as a visitor in 2001, and fell in love with and married Patricia Amy Stewart, an American citizen. They have three young children, all of whom were born in the United States. Mr. Nasser stated in his complaint that he was not aware of the requirement for registration. According to Mr. Nasser’s complaint, “at all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff in good faith attempted to comply with the special registration requirements of the NSEERS program established by the Attorney General which consisted of multiple and confusing notices published in the Federal Register expanding the class of affected foreign citizens and nationals, changing the deadlines for compliance and listing varying periods of admission.” Ms. Stewart filed an immediate relative petition on her husband’s behalf on February 5, 2002, and on that same date Mr. Nasser filed an application for adjustment of status and work authorization. Pursuant to his pending adjustment, Mr. Nasser appeared at a local DHS office on June 3, 2003 for the processing of his employment authorization application. Despite being called in to process his work authorization, at no point did DHS advise Mr. Nasser that he needed to register under NSEERS. On January 19, 2006, Mr. Nasser underwent special registration as a condition of his pending application for adjustment of status. On March 21, 2006, Nasser was denied adjustment of status and was found to have “willfully” violated NSEERS. This has left Mr. Nasser in the difficult position of being ineligible to work because he has no legal status in the United States, and has harshly impacted him and members of his immediate family.”

NSEERS: "The nation’s broadest campaign of ethnic profiling since World War II"

2009-10-29T19:34:00.000-04:00

In their book, "Less Safe, Less Free: Why American is loosing the War on Terror," Professors David Cole and Jules Lobel made a compelling case as to why preventive law enforcement has failed, and why "anticipatory coercion has nearly always proved to be a grave mistake, not only as a matter of principle but also as a matter of effective security."

Below is an excerpt from Part II of the book, "Less Safe"- chapter 4, "The Failure of Preventive Law Enforcement"- with the subsection entitled "Immigration Enforcement: 0 For 93,000"-page 107

“When Attorney General John Ashcroft first announced the ‘paradigm of prevention’ in a speech in October 2001 in New York City, he vowed that the administration would use all laws within its power to round up suspected terrorists and prevent them from inflicting further damage upon us. He explicitly singled out immigration law, warning terrorists that that if they ‘overstayed [their] visa by even one day,’ they would be locked up. The administration subsequently adopted a zero-tolerance immigration policy towards immigrants and visitors from Arab and Muslim countries, on the theory that it would thereby root out the terrorists. But the nation’s broadest campaign of ethnic profiling since World War II came up empty. The Special Registration program, which required 80,000 men from predominantly Arab and Muslim countries to register after September 11, resulted in not a single terrorist conviction. Of the 8,000 men of Arab and Muslim descent sought out for FBI interviews, and the more than 5,000 foreign nationals placed in preventive detention in the first two years after 9/11, virtually all Arabs and Muslims, not one stands convicted of a terrorist crime today. In these initiatives, the government’s record is 0 for 93,000.”

UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) calls on US Government to review NSEERS

2009-10-09T17:11:00.000-04:00

In a letter to the U.S. Government regarding the U.S.’s compliance with the International Convention on the elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, CERD called for a review of NSEERS. The letter, dated September 28, 2009, specifically stated that “[t]he Committee […] stresses the need to review the National Entry and Exit Registration System, NSEERS, with a view of avoiding racial profiling in migration policies.”

This is not the first time that CERD has called for a review of NSEERS. The 2008 CERD recommendations called on the U.S. Government to “put an end to the National Entry and Exit Registration System (NEERS) and to eliminate other forms of racial profiling against Arabs, Muslims and South Asians.”

Significant Questions About NSEERS Raised by Malea Kiblan, Esq.

2009-10-01T15:28:00.000-04:00

We would appreciate as many responses to the following questions as possible from all over the country so that these findings can be conveyed to CIS and ICE Headquarters:

When someone is required to late register for NSEERS, how is that process handled by ICE in your jurisdiction?

Are you allowed as an attorney to be present with your client during the interview? Are you allowed to provide evidence?

Does ICE make any specific findings of fact?

Do they accept testimony that the applicant simply was not aware of the program or his obligation to register?

Do they make consistent “willful” findings? How does CIS respond to a willful finding – do they deny Ajustment of Status?

Template for a blog entry on "Race Matters"

2009-10-01T15:22:00.000-04:00

Please find below a brief worksheet for blog entries on “Race Matters.” This worksheet is only a suggestion, and is designed to help guide you when writing a blog entry for yourself/your client. Please note that you are also more than welcome to discuss ideas/thoughts or policy issues that may not be spelled out in the worksheet. Thank you for contributing to Race Matters! If you have any questions, comments or suggestions regarding the worksheet, please write to fahed@adc.org

BIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION OF CLIENT

• Name (or fictitious name)
• Country of Origin/Nationality
• Degrees
• Profession
• Marital Status
• Where do you/does your client currently live?

EQUITIES

• Family ties in the US: please include name (or fictitious name), age and relationship
• Community ties in the US
• Length of Residence in the US

QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE NSEERS PROGRAM

• When and how did you/your client hear about the NSEERS program?
• Where did you/your client live during the implementation of the program?
• When did you/your client register under NSEERS? Was the registration at a port of entry or a local immigration office?
• Did you/your client have an immigration attorney at the time he registered or for any other reason?
• Did you/your client register on time? If not, did you/your client go through late registration? Where? Which USCIS/ICE district office? Please explain the process.
• If you/your client registered late, which office made the decision about your registration? What were the result and reasoning behind such decision?

IMMIGRATION BENEFITS:

• Have you applied for an immigration benefit since you entered the US? Please explain
• Have you been denied an immigration benefit based on noncompliance with NSEERS? Please explain
• If you have been denied a benefit, has the basis for your denial been based on a “willful” failure to register? Who made the decision and one what date?

CONFIDENTIALITY:

please note that when sharing your entry or story with the co-hosts of “Race Matters,” you are giving permission to have the information provided posted on the blog and used for advocacy purposes.

Over 40 organizations call for an NSEERS audit

2009-09-21T10:21:00.000-04:00

On Thursday September 17, 2009, over 40 organizations sent a letter to the DHS Inspector General calling for an NSEERS audit. Below is ADC's press release issued regarding the letter:

Washington, DC | September 17, 2009 | www.adc.org | Today, more than 40 organizations, including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), submitted a letter to Richard L. Skinner, US Department of Homeland Security Inspector General (DHS IG), requesting an audit of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). The letter calls for DHS IG to make findings on the effectiveness of NSEERS, the costs incurred with implementing the program, the relationship between NSEERS and the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program, the use of NSEERS in Operation Frontline , the impact of NSEERS non-compliance on individuals and families, and the adequacy of notice surrounding the program.

The impact of NSEERS on the Arab-American, South Asian-American and Muslim-American communities endures. As documented in the report issued by ADC and the Center for Immigrants’ Rights at Penn State University Dickinson School of Law, "NSEERS: The Consequences of America's efforts to Secure Its Borders." (March, 2009) , “[w]ell-intentioned individuals who failed to comply with NSEERS due to a lack of knowledge or fear have been denied “adjustment of status” (green cards), and in some cases have been placed in removal proceedings under the premise that they “willfully” failed to register. This scenario has torn apart families because of the real implications of having a parent or spouse without a legal status.”

ADC National Executive Director Kareem Shora, who earlier this year was sworn in as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) said, “Using immigration law as a counterterrorism tool with racial profiling tactics has failed in the past, and continues to fail,” said Shora, “the perceived injustice of singling out people based on national origin and penalizing them for their cooperation with a government program may have resulted in significant harm to the relationship of trust between law enforcement and the Arab and Muslim American and immigrant communities—a relationship that is vital to the national security of the United States. Nearly 14,000 men who complied with call-in registration were placed in removal proceedings. If a goal of special registration was to track possible terrorists, deporting those who complied with the program undermines this aim, especially since it may reduce future compliance.”

The letter to the DHS IG was signed by a wide range of local, state and national organizations, including community-based groups, faith-based organizations, civil and human rights groups, coalition groups, and immigration advocacy groups.

Recommendations to the Obama Administration

2009-09-15T14:30:00.000-04:00

Below is the executive summary of "NSEERS: The Consequences of America’s efforts to Secure Its Borders," published by the Center for Immigrants’ Rights at Penn State University’s Dickinson School of Law and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).

"The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program was implemented as a counterterrorism tool in the wake of September 11, 2001. The NSEERS program required certain non-immigrants to register themselves at ports of entry and local immigration offices for fingerprints, photographs and lengthy questioning. The most controversial aspect of the NSEERS program was a “domestic” component that solicited registrations from more than 80,000 males who were inside the United States on temporary visas from Muslim-majority countries. In September 2003, of the more than 80,000 individuals who complied with call-in registration, 13,799 were referred to investigations and received notices to appear, and 2,870 were detained.

Many non-immigrants subjected to the NSEERS program did not understand the details of the program, as the rules were unclear and public outreach and notice were insufficient. NSEERS’s initial mission was to keep track of non-immigrants and prevent terrorist attacks. However, interviews with immigration attorneys representing individuals impacted by NSEERS and policy advocates, and a review of multiple reports and federal court decisions reveal that the NSEERS program was unsuccessful as a counterterrorism tool.

Many of the individuals who legally challenged the NSEERS program entered the United States lawfully, diligently complied with the NSEERS program, were predominantly male and Muslim, and had an immigration violation such as overstaying a visa that came to the attention of the immigration agency after complying with NSEERS. Moreover, many individuals impacted by NSEERS do not appear to have terrorism charges or criminal histories. Notably, many of these individuals have meaningful family, business and cultural ties to the United States.

Indeed, more than seven years after its implementation, NSEERS continues to impact the Arab-American community. Impacted individuals include those who are married to United States citizens or meaningfully employed in the United States. Well-intentioned individuals who failed to comply with NSEERS due to a lack of knowledge or fear have been denied “adjustment of status” (green cards), and in some cases have been placed in removal proceedings under the theory that they “willfully” failed to register. This scenario has torn apart Arab-American families because of the real implications of having a parent or spouse without a legal status. NSEERS has also raised a number of public policy questions. Public outcry, governmental criticism of the program, and judicial challenges demonstrate that the program has not necessarily benefited the United States’ domestic and foreign policy. Today, the United States is at a critical and historic juncture: a new Administration presents an opportunity to restore America’s character, and reexamine and overhaul ill-conceived policies implemented in the last eight years. With this in mind, this white paper offers the following recommendations to the Obama Administration:

1. The Administration should terminate the NSEERS program and repeal related regulations.

2. Individuals who did not comply with NSEERS due to lack of knowledge or fear should not lose eligibility for or be denied a specific relief or benefit, to which they are otherwise NSEERS: The Consequences of America’s Efforts to Secure Its Borders eligible. Similarly, the Administration should provide relief to individuals who were placed in removal proceedings because of their participation in NSEERS.

3. The Administration should allow individuals impacted by NSEERS, who have been removed, to return to the United States, should they have a basis for re-entering the United States. Special consideration should be given to individuals with immediate family members living in the United States and/or those with pending benefits applications.

4. The Administration should eliminate programs that target people based on ethnic origin, race, nationality, religion and/or gender. The Administration should insure that agencies adhere to a standard of individualized suspicion.

5. Upon termination of the NSEERS program, the Administration should issue a formal apology to foreign visitors subject to the NSEERS program, in order to rectify the impression left on many affected communities impacted by the special registration program. The apology should be issued through a press release and a formal letter posted on the website of the Department of Homeland Security. The government should clarify that ethnic origin, race, nationality, religion and/or gender alone are not a sufficient basis of criteria for identifying terrorists.

6. With transparency being a pillar of the current Administration, DHS should release the number of terrorists identified through the NSEERS program and related data, in order to assess the government’s professed success of the program."