It’s Time to End the Cuban Adjustment Act

by Jason Dzubow

In a surprise move (at least a surprise to me), President Obama announced that our country would be moving towards normalization of our relationship with Cuba. As part of the deal, the two countries agreed to exchange some political prisoners, and it appears we will be restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba and opening an Embassy in Havana.

Evidence that the embargo is working: A dashing Fidel Castro pre-embargo...
Evidence that the embargo is working: A dashing Fidel Castro pre-embargo…

During our long Cold War with Cuba, one element of our “special relationship” has been the Cuban Adjustment Act (“CAA”), a law that allows any Cuban who arrives in the United States to obtain residency here. It’s akin to automatic asylum for any Cuban who reaches U.S. shores.

I have written before about my opposition to this law: In short, I believe that Cubans should apply for asylum in the same way as everyone else. It makes no sense to give automatic asylum to Cubans, especially since other countries—Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq to name a few—are much more dangerous than Cuba, and nationals from those countries must apply for asylum in the normal way.

It seems to me that the CAA and our over-all Cuba policy exists because of our government’s decision that this was the best way to isolate the Castro regime and force democratic change on our island neighbor. More specifically, anti-Castro Cubans in Miami pushed our nation’s Cuba policy towards the all-stick, no-carrot approach that—50 years later—has accomplished nothing. Now, it seems attitudes among the Cuban American community have shifted. To be sure, many still oppose normalization, but—so far at least—we have not seen the type of angry, in-the-streets reaction that characterized the Elian Gonzales affair during the Clinton Presidency. Perhaps there is more widespread recognition that the old policy hasn’t worked, and that we need to try something new.

Fidel Castro, visibly aged due to pressure from the embargo.
Fidel Castro, visibly aged due to pressure from the embargo.

So now that we are moving towards a new phase in our relationship with Cuba, it makes sense to end the CAA. The situation in Cuba is less dangerous than in many other countries, and so there is no longer any justification for the CAA based on humanitarian reasons (though I believe there really never was a valid justification for the law based on humanitarian reasons). The only logical reason for the CAA was as a propaganda tool against the Castro regime. I doubt this ever really worked (except maybe in the minds of some in the anti-Castro Cuban community), and—given that we are moving towards normalized relations—it certainly makes no sense at all any more.

All of this is not to say that the Cuban regime respects human rights or allows political dissent. It’s clear that the government represses the political opposition, and that it detains and persecutes perceived opponents. But that type of behavior is, unfortunately, all too common in many countries, and it does not justify a blanket asylum for everyone who comes from a country with a poor human rights record. Indeed, it is exactly why we have an asylum system in the first place.

The CAA is inconsistent with our new Cuban policy. When viewed in context of the overall asylum system, it cannot be justified on humanitarian grounds. It’s time to end the CAA and move towards a new relationship with Cuba.

Continue reading

7 Comments

Palestinian Activist Convicted of Immigration Fraud; Supporters Cry Foul

by Jason Dzubow

Earlier this week, Rasmea Odeh, the associate director of the Arab American Action Network in Chicago, was convicted of one count of Unlawful Procurement of Naturalization. She faces up to 10 years in prison, a fine, and possible deportation from the United States.

Convincing Ms. Odeh's supporters proved easier than convincing a jury.
Convincing Ms. Odeh’s supporters proved easier than convincing a jury.

Ms. Odeh is a Palestinian who was convicted in Israel in 1970 for involvement in two bombings, one of which killed two university students in a supermarket. She was sentenced to life in prison, but she was freed in 1979 as part of a prisoner exchange between Israel and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Ms. Odeh maintains that she is innocent of the crime, and that she was coerced into confessing under torture by the Israeli authorities.

In the mid-1990s, she immigrated from Jordan to the United States, and in 2004, she became a U.S. citizen. By all accounts, she did well in her adopted country:

Rasmea Odeh has been with the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) since 2004 and is the Associate Director and Community Adult Women Organizer…. She has worked as a teacher and then a lawyer after she completed her law degree. She gained valuable community experience through her work and service in various associations including women’s and workers’ unions, family and domestic violence groups, human right centers and the Red Cross. She created a successful community writing group at the AAAN to encourage women to tell their colorful stories and experiences while living in the United States in a creative and exciting way.

Ms. Odeh’s current troubles stem from her failure to report her conviction and sentence on her immigration and naturalization forms. Those forms ask such questions as “Have you ever been arrested, cited, or detained by any law enforcement officer… for any reason?” and “Have you ever been charged with committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in committing a crime or offense?” (emphasis in original). In response to these questions, Ms. Odeh answered “no.”

In a sense, this is an open-and-shut case. Whether or not Ms. Odeh is guilty of the underlying crime (the bombing), she certainly provided false information on the immigration forms. But of course, nothing connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can ever be simple, and Ms. Odeh’s case is no exception.

The first complicating factor is Ms. Odeh’s alleged torture by Israel. This became relevant because the defense hoped to prove that Ms. Odeh did not “knowingly” lie on the immigration forms; rather, her “post-traumatic stress disorder” somehow caused her to answer the questions incorrectly. The judge disallowed this defense in a pre-trial order, and it will no doubt be one of the claims raised on appeal. To me, the PTSD defense is simply not believable. Many of my clients are torture victims and possibly suffer from PTSD, but I’ve never seen a case where the client isn’t able to answer a yes-or-no question about whether she was arrested. Maybe she does not want to talk about the arrest, but she knows it happened and can complete the form properly. Even if the judge had allowed this defense, I doubt that the jury would have accepted it.

Deprived of her PTSD defense, Ms. Odeh argued that she misunderstood the questions related to her criminal convictions. She said that she thought the questions were about her time in the U.S., and that she had nothing to hide and did not need to lie. She apparently testified about her alleged torture at the United Nations in 1979, and as her lead attorney said, “It was well known that she was convicted, and traded [in a prisoner exchange]. The U.S. Embassy knew it, the State Department knew it, and Immigration should have known it.” Neither of these points is very convincing. First, Ms. Odeh clearly had a very good reason to lie–if the U.S. government knew about her conviction on terrorism charges, she would likely have been denied a visa and citizenship. Second, her attorney’s claim that she did not have to answer the questions truthfully since the U.S. government was already aware of her conviction is simply bizarre (as if some USCIS bureaucrat in 2004 would magically be aware of Ms. Odeh’s testimony before the UN in 1979).

The most (and to me, only) convincing argument made by Ms. Odeh is that her prosecution stems from an improper government investigation that targeted Palestinian activists and others who were exercising their First Amendment rights. Ms. Odeh filed an unsuccessful motion to dismiss relying on this theory. The investigation in question was brought against 23 anti-war and Palestinian activists, and after 3+ years, has not resulted in any indictments. During the course of the investigation, the government of Israel turned over documents to the United States. It is these documents that purportedly led to the discovery of Ms. Odeh’s imprisonment (and hence the discovery that she lied on her immigration forms). The failure of the underlying investigation to reach any conclusion suggests that it might have been improper and, if so, perhaps the discovery related to Ms. Odeh was unlawful (fruit of the poison tree and all that). I suppose we will see what comes of this argument on appeal. But of course, even if Ms. Odeh is correct about the improper investigation, and even if she ultimately wins with this issue on appeal, that does not change the fact that she lied on her forms.

Finally, it is interesting to see how people’s views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict affect their views of Ms. Odeh’s case. To her supporters, this case is about Israeli torture of Palestinians. They seem to accept Ms. Odeh’s explanation that she is innocent, that she was tortured into confessing, that any mistakes on the form were either a misunderstanding or a result of her PTSD, and that the whole case is an effort by the U.S. government to undermine the Palestinian cause.

While I largely sympathize with the Palestinian side, I find Ms. Odeh’s explanations hard to accept. To me—and apparently to the jury—the case is much simpler than all that. The question is, Did Ms. Odeh knowingly lie on her immigration and naturalization forms? The jury found that she did. Despite all the craziness surrounding her case, and whether she is a victim or a villain, the simplest and most likely explanation here is that Ms. Odeh lied about her imprisonment in order to obtain an immigration benefit from the United States. If so, she received the conviction she deserved.

Continue reading

6 Comments

An Interview with “Juan” – Unaccompanied Minor, ISIS Supporter, and Ebola Carrier

by Jason Dzubow

In a recent press conference, the dynamic duo of Congressman Steve King and rich guy Donald Trump made some pretty frightening claims about the young people who have lately been arriving at our Southern border. Mr. King told the audience that America is becoming “a third-world country” because of “the things that are coming at us from across the border,” including illegal drugs, Central American children of “prime gang recruitment age,” ISIS… and the Ebola virus. These are some pretty serious charges, and so we here at the Asylumist decided to investigate for ourselves. What we found will shock you.

King and Trump: A couple of cards. Probably jokers.
King and Trump: A couple of cards. Probably jokers.

After flying down to Texas, I went to a detention facility that must remained unnamed. There, I met a 14-year-old boy, who we will call Juan. Juan hails from El Salvador–or so he says–and claims that members of a gang attacked his house, threatened his family, and tried to kill him. He then fled to the United States. It’s a sad tale, but is it true? I suspected that there was more to the story. You see, Juan has brownish skin, so he is likely a Muslim. Plus, when I met him, he was sweating. This, despite the fact that the detention facility is kept at a balmy 52 degrees Fahrenheit. In my book, Sweating = Ebola. I had some hard questions for Juan:

ASYLUMIST: Salaam Alaikum.

JUAN: [stares blankly]

ASYLUMIST: Salaam Alaikum.

JUAN: I am not sure what you are saying to me.

ASYLUMIST: Yeh, right. So tell me Juan, if that is your real name, why did you come to the United States?

JUAN: Actually, Juan is not my name. You just started calling me Juan for some reason. My real name is Alberto.

ASYLUMIST: For purposes of this interview, we will call you Juan. So tell me, Juan, why did you come here?

JUAN: In my town, the gang is very powerful. If you don’t join them, they threaten you, take your money, even kill you. Gang members have targeted my family because we are Evangelical Christians and we refuse to join the gang. My father is a Minister. Because we refused to join, the gang set our house on fire, they fired a gun through our window, they threatened me many times with guns and knives. Finally, they tried to kill me, so I had to…

ASYLUMIST: Blah, blah, blah. Everyone knows that you can’t get asylum in the U.S. if you are fleeing gang violence. There’s no nexus. It will open the floodgates. We have enough problems here already. We don’t need gangbangers like you messing up our country.

JUAN: But I am not a gang member! And I heard that in some cases, when a person is threatened on account of his religion, he can receive asylum in the U.S. even if the persecutor is not the government. There is a case about that called Matter of S-A-. Also, the gang targeted my whole family; not just me, and “family” is a protected category under U.S. asylum law. One case that discusses family as a social group is Lopez-Soto v. Ashcroft. Besides these published decisions, there are many unpublished decisions where people like me have received asylum in the United States.

ASYLUMIST: You seem to know a lot about asylum for a 14-year-old Salvadoran boy. Very suspicious. Let’s shift gears. Why are you so sweaty?

JUAN: I don’t have Ebola.

ASYLUMIST: Ah Ha! I didn’t even mention Ebola. Why would you bring it up unless you had Ebola. Thou protesteth too much, dear Juan. Excuse me while I relocate myself outside your six-foot danger zone.

JUAN: You mentioned it at the very beginning! And I really don’t have Ebola. I’ve been detained here for two months. If I had Ebola, I’d be dead by now.

ASYLUMIST: You’re spitting when you talk. Please stop that.

JUAN: I was not spitting.

ASYLUMIST: If you don’t have Ebola, how do you explain the sweating?

JUAN: Maybe because I am stressed. I fled my country and I’m away from my family for the first time. The gang tried to kill me. Now, I’ve been detained for the last two months.

ASYLUMIST: I’m not buying it. Didn’t you come here to take our jobs and our women, collect welfare, and spread Ebola and Jihad? Is that a prayer rug you’re sitting on? And what’s that book next to you? It looks like a Koran.

JUAN: Huh?

ASYLUMIST: You’re sitting on a Muslim prayer rug. And that book looks like a Koran.

JUAN: No, I am sitting on a towel. There was no bed space for me, so they gave me a towel to sleep on. It is not very comfortable.

ASYLUMIST: And the book?

JUAN: Pep Comics # 224. It’s about Jughead Jones and his dog named Hot Dog. The dog used to belong to Archie, but somehow Jughead got him.

ASYLUMIST: I see. Anything else you want to add before I leave this godforsaken place?

JUAN: I am just hoping to get my case heard. I am afraid to return to my country. I want to live safely and in peace. I don’t have any diseases and I am not a terrorist or a criminal. I really don’t understand the United States. You are so powerful, and yet you are afraid of a 14 year old boy. I hope you will help me. And why are you on the floor in the fetal position?

ASYLUMIST: Please don’t unleash your Jihadi Ebola attack on me! Ahh! Run away!  

Continue reading

4 Comments

Beirut Embassy Bomber Gets US Asylum, New Book (Incorrectly) Claims

by Jason Dzubow

A new book by Pulitzer-Prize winner Kai Bird claims that the Iranian intelligence officer behind the 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut–and many other terrorist attacks–received asylum in the United States. Among those killed in the 1983 attack were the CIA’s top Middle East analyst, a “good spy” named Robert Ames, who purportedly cultivated friendly relations with Arab leaders. Mr. Bird speculates that had Robert Ames lived, the U.S. would have had a different, better relationship with the Arab World.

Use of correct terminology is always appreciated.
Use of correct terminology is always appreciated.

According to The Good Spy: The Life and Death of Robert Ames, the CIA and President Bush brought Ali Reza Asgari, the terrorist responsible for the 1983 attack, to the United States in 2007. He came here in exchange for information about Iran, Hezbollah, and other U.S. rivals in the Middle East. This intelligence supposedly led to the assassination of Hezbollah’s number two man and the bombing of a secret Syrian nuclear facility, among other things. 

Like many people who review books, I have not actually read The Good Spy (though it certainly sounds delightful). In my defense, I don’t really plan to review the book. I just want to talk about one word used by Mr. Bird: Asylum. Mr. Bird writes (and here I quote the book):

The decision to give Asgari political asylum under the CIA’s Public Law 110 program was probably opposed by veteran CIA officers who have some knowledge of Asgari’s alleged responsibility for Roberts Ames’s murder…. But they and the agency were reportedly overruled by the George W. Bush administration’s National Security Council.

The emphasis is mine. If Mr. Asgari did, in fact, come to the U.S. under the Public Law 110 program, he did not receive political asylum. Aliens in the United States who fear persecution in their home countries can apply for asylum under INA § 208 (also known as 8 U.S.C. § 1158). Public Law 110, on the other hand, appears at 50 U.S.C. § 403h:

Whenever the Director [of the CIA], the Attorney General, and the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization shall determine that the entry of a particular alien into the United States for permanent residence is in the interest of national security or essential to the furtherance of the national intelligence mission, such alien and his immediate family shall be given entry into the United States for permanent residence without regard to their inadmissibility under the immigration or any other laws and regulations, or to the failure to comply with such laws and regulations pertaining to admissibility.

In other words, if certain high-ranking leaders in the U.S. determine that a terrorist should be allowed to live in the U.S., the terrorist will be allowed to live in the U.S. But this is usually a quid pro quo and has nothing to do with asylum or the asylum system. Indeed, given his terrorist activities, Mr. Asgari would not be eligible for asylum, as he would be subject to numerous bars under INA § 208(b)(2).

Maybe this is a small point, but I think it is important. Mr. Bird’s book is attracting widespread attention–everyone from Newsweek to Glen Beck’s blog, the Blaze is carrying the story–and it is unfortunate that these outlets are repeating Mr. Bird’s error. The asylum system is already under assault by those who claim it is an entryway for terrorists and criminals, and so Mr. Bird’s incorrect use of the term has unfairly impugned a system that protects thousands of legitimate refugees and that has been specifically designed to block people like Mr. Asgari.

While colloquially, we might label anyone who fears harm and who is admitted into the United States as having received “asylum,” this is simply incorrect, and it damages the asylum system to taint it with association to the likes of Mr. Asgari. I am not saying that Mr. Asgari should not have been brought to the United States. Perhaps the intelligence he provided was worth allowing a mass murderer to resettle in our country. But he came to the United States because our elected officials determined that bringing him here was the best course of action for our country, not because he qualified or was eligible for asylum.

Continue reading

Judiciary Committee Hearing on Asylum Abuse: Some Questions for Rep. Goodlatte and for Asylum Advocates

by Jason Dzubow

Lately, I’ve been worrying that asylum might become a victim of its own success. Thanks to lawyers pushing the law, the number and categories of people eligible for asylum has increased pretty dramatically: Victims of FGM and domestic violence, LGBT individuals, certain victims of crimes. This is a good thing, as many lives have been saved. But it has started to attract the attention of immigrant restrictionists, who think the asylum system is too generous. Could the tide be shifting? Might we be on the verge of a backlash?

The Romans aren't all that popular this time of year.
The Romans aren’t all that popular this time of year.

There’s precedent for such fear dating back to antiquity. When the Roman Empire conquered Greece, the various city-states had a well-developed system of temple asylum. In short, if you were a slave fleeing abuse, you could go for protection to a Greek temple. Over time, the types of people who could claim protection in Greek temples expanded, so that basically anyone, including rebels and common criminals, could find refuge in a temple. The law-and-order Romans would have none of it. In 14 AD, Emperor Tiberius ordered the temples to produce evidence of their right to offer asylum. Most temples could not do so, and so Tiberius’s little bureaucratic maneuver essentially ended asylum in the Greek city-states. So much for the history lesson.

Late last month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) announced that they would be holding hearings on asylum and credible fear “abuse” by people arriving in the U.S. via Mexico. The press announcement does not sound promising:

It’s outrageous that members of Mexican drug cartels and others involved in illicit activity are so easily able to exploit our asylum laws and live in the U.S. virtually undetected. Our asylum laws are in place to help individuals who are facing truly serious persecution in their countries. However, dangerous criminals are gaming the system by claiming they have a ‘credible fear’ of persecution when often they’ve been the perpetrators of violence themselves. Their claims almost always get rubberstamped by the Obama Administration and once these individuals are in the U.S., the illegal activity doesn’t stop. 

Unfortunately, it appears the Obama Administration is compromising our national security and the safety of our communities for its political agenda. The House Judiciary Committee plans to hold a hearing soon to closely examine this egregious abuse to see what can be done to put an end to it.

Over the last couple months, I’ve written pretty extensively about the influx of asylum seekers at the border, and there certainly seem to be issues that require attention. That’s why it’s disappointing to see such an overtly political description of the upcoming hearings. Hopefully, the hearings themselves will be more constructive (yes, for some reason, I am feeling unusually optimistic – maybe its The Season). 

Not that anyone has asked, but I thought I would raise some issues that the Committee might explore:

– We need accurate statistics about who is seeking asylum and why: It is very difficult to know who seeks asylum, who receives it, who receives other relief, and who is denied. One problem is that the two agencies that track asylum cases–DOJ and DHS–use different metrics for calculating their numbers. Another problem is that there are no stats available on people who receive Withholding of Removal and Torture Convention relief (two benefits that are similar, though inferior, to asylum). Congress should mandate better record keeping on asylum cases: Where do asylum seekers come from? What is the basis for their grants or denials? How many are detained? How many leave of their own volition after receiving a denial? How many are deported? How many cases are re-opened for fraud or due to criminal convictions? Such information will allow us to improve our policy-making and will hopefully lead to a better and more secure system.

– We need to make some decisions about how to treat asylum applicants at the borders: There has been a significant increase in asylum applicants arriving at our Southern border. Currently, most are detained and–if they pass a credible fear interview–they are released with a date to return to Immigration Court. I have not seen specific examples of individuals who have entered the U.S. in this manner and then committed bad acts. But given the number of arrivals, the possibility for this to happen seems pretty high. So do we detain these asylum seekers until their cases are heard? Such an approach makes it much more difficult for them to prepare their asylum cases. It is also very expensive. Should each person be fitted with an ankle bracelet or some other tracking device? If we had more accurate data about asylum seekers, perhaps we could better answer these questions.

– We must decide how to treat people fleeing persecution where that persecution is not based on a protected ground: Many people arriving at the Southern border face real harm from gangs, cartels, and criminals. Many others face serious harm due to sexual violence. Often, such people do not fall neatly into one of the five protected categories. Most will not qualify for lesser forms of relief, such as the Convention Against Torture. So what to do with them? Of course, we could simply deport them as we are not obligated by our international agreements to protect them. But sending innocent people to their deaths seems not in keeping with our national values (or any other notion of morality). Could something be done for such people without creating an incentive for everyone South of the border to come to the United States?

– We need to plan ahead to deal with a potentially large refugee flow from Mexico: For years, we’ve been hearing discussion about the possibility of large refugee flows from Mexico due to the violence there. If this happens, our current asylum system will likely not handle the volume. Perhaps we need a contingency plan for how to deal with such refugees. Faced with refugee crises, other countries have created temporary camps for people, where they can stay until it is safe to return (though often that takes decades or longer, and then there is no where to return to). Maybe such a model would be appropriate if the situation in Mexico deteriorates further. Or maybe some type of TPS would be more appropriate. In any case, it seems to me that we can start thinking about this now, so that we are more prepared in case of a humanitarian disaster. 

There is obviously more to say about these topics, but–since it is the season of miracles–I continue to hope that the Judiciary Committee will address these and other important issues related to our asylum system.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Ethiopian Refugees Help Catch Their Persecutors

by Jason Dzubow

In the Ethiopian-American community, at long last, the hunters have become the hunted. 

Members of the community have created a new website to share information and help bring to justice Ethiopian human rights abusers living in the United States. The founders of the website, called YaTewlid (meaning “The Generation”), are themselves torture survivors. They have been inspired by a few recent prosecutions of Ethiopian human rights abusers in the United States.

The most recent case involved a high-ranking prison guard during the time of the Red Terror in Ethiopia (1977-78). Earlier this month, Kefelgn Alemu Worku was convicted of immigration fraud after he entered the U.S. using a false name and lied about his background. According to the Denver Post, those who witnessed against him testified that Mr. Kefelgn tortured and murdered hundreds of prisoners, including one witnesses’ best friend. Mr. Kefelgn faces up to 22 years in prison (for the fraud) and then deportation to Ethiopia where, presumably, he would not receive a friendly reception.

Kefelgn Alemu Worku proves that time wounds all heels.
Kefelgn Alemu Worku proves that time wounds all heels.

As an aside, Mr. Kefelgn’s case demonstrates why the various immigration forms ask questions like, Are you a persecutor? or Have you ever committed a crime? On their face, the questions seems silly–what self-respecting persecutor would admit that he was a persecutor? The U.S. government does not necessarily expect persecutors and criminals to admit their misdeeds (though that would be nice). Rather, if the government discovers evidence that the alien is a persecutor, it is a lot easier to prosecute him for immigration fraud than for the actual crimes he committed in his country. And that is exactly what happened to Mr. Kefelgn. He was prosecuted not for his war crimes, but instead for his immigration fraud (this reminds me of how the government prosecuted Al Capone for tax evasion rather than murder). 

As of this writing, the YaTewlid website is only in Amharic, but its founders hope to have an English version in the future. I had an Amharic-speaking friend check it out. She reports that the website needs some work, but it will potentially be a useful tool for uncovering human rights abusers living in the U.S.

It seems to me that DHS/ICE would do well to talk to groups such as YaTewlid, since the people best able to ferret out criminals (and fraudsters) are members of the various immigrant communities. 

Indeed, ICE does have a special unit, called the Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Unit (HRVWCU – though I think they need a more sexy acronym), which is part of the National Security Investigations Division. According to its website, HRVWCU–

conducts investigations focused on human rights violations in an effort to prevent the United States from becoming a safe haven to those individuals who engage in the commission of war crimes, genocide, torture, and other forms of serious human rights abuses from conflicts around the globe.

The unit has had its fair share of successes. Again, from the website:

Since fiscal year 2004, ICE has arrested more than 250 individuals for human rights-related violations under various criminal and/or immigration statutes. During that same period, ICE has denied more than 117 individuals from obtaining entry visas to the United States and created more than 20,000 subject records, which prevented identified human-rights violators from attempting to enter the United States. In addition, ICE successfully obtained deportation orders to physically remove more than 590 known or suspected human rights violators from the United States. Currently, ICE is pursuing more than 1,900 leads and removal cases that involve suspected human rights violators from nearly 96 different countries.

The efforts of HRVWCU are crucial to preventing human rights abusers from taking advantage of our immigration and asylum systems, and to protecting the integrity of those systems. The cooperation of community groups such as YaTewlid is also crucial to this effort.

It is in the interest of everyone–government, immigrant groups, and “the system”– to find, punish, and deport human rights abusers. Only in this way can we provide some justice for the victims and keep the door open to legitimate refugees who need our protection.

Continue reading

6 Comments

Behind the Security Background Checks

by Jason Dzubow

Before they can receive asylum, every applicant must undergo a security background check. But what exactly does the government check? And how can they learn about an applicant’s background when she spent most of her life outside the United States?

To me, these security background checks have always been a bit of a mystery. I’ve heard that the checks involve multiple agencies (FBI, State Department, etc.) and multiple data bases, but I did not know much more than that. Now, a recent article has shed some light on at least one type of background check: The FBI’s Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC) operates the nation’s “bomb library,” which keeps data on explosive devices used in terrorist attacks. TEDAC is directed by Greg Carl and operates out of Quantico, Virginia.

Each bomb maker leaves a unique signature.
Each bomb maker leaves a unique signature.

TEDAC analyzes the “remnants of improvised explosive devices… in hopes of recovering latent prints from the insurgent bomb makers who crafted them.” The Center has created a “comprehensive database of known terrorists for all law enforcement, the U.S. intelligence community and the military to share.” The Center has received evidence from the “underwear bomber,” the Boston Marathon bombing, and from attacks all across the world. The evidence collected by TEDAC comes from “bombings in as many as 25 countries from as far as the Horn of Africa and Southeast Asia, in addition to the United States:”

More than 100,000 boxes of evidence have been collected so far. They contain more than a million fragments fashioned from ordinary objects, which are barcoded and labeled before going through a wide array of forensic examinations, including toolmark identification, which allows matches of fragments to be made. Every scrap is searched for clues to a bomber’s identity.

The Center’s work seems to be effective. “According to Mary Kathryn Book, a physical scientist with the lab, ‘Approximately 60% of the time, we are able to recover prints from these items through fingerprint processing. And then later these prints are searched in our database and we attempt to identify the individuals who left them.'”

One project that is directly relevant to refugees and asylum seekers is the ongoing examination of IED material from Iraq to determine if “any Iraqi refugees relocated in the United States may be tied to IED attacks, as was the case with two Iraqi refugees based in Kentucky.” (I wrote about this issue here).

Unfortunately, our Congress has decided to cut funds from TEDAC (well, “decided” might not be accurate – they simply slashed and burned the budget indiscriminately). For all of us, there is the concern that we will be less safe due to these budget cuts. For asylum seekers fleeing persecution, it likely also means more delays for security background checks. This means longer insecurity and separation from family. In the unlikely event that Congress gets its act together, we can only hope that TEDAC will receive the funds it needs to keep operating effectively.

Continue reading

13 Comments

Dear House Republicans: Hate the Government? Go Live in a Country Without One

by Jason Dzubow

At the heart of the Republicans’ intransigence on the budget and the debt ceiling, and their willingness to shut our government down in order to (sort-of) block Obamacare, lies an utter contempt for America’s government and its employees. A willingness to disrespect, blame, and penalize government “bureaucrats” for everything and anything. They love to quote President Reagan‘s old trope: “Government is the problem.” Well, I have a proposal for you–if you hate government so much, why not try living in a country without one?

As an asylum attorney, many of the people I represent come from countries without decent governments. They come to America because in their countries, there is no security, no jobs, no justice. Let me tell you about some of my clients.

One is a woman from Afghanistan who was pushed into an engagement by her family and her fiance’s family. The woman was highly educated and accomplished. In her job, she helped hundreds of people and she met with many high-level officials, including a U.S. Secretary of State. Her fiance threatened to kill her if she continued her work or education. Did her government help her? No, in Afghanistan, women have no rights when it comes to family matters. She had to come to our government for help, and she received asylum.

I represented a policeman from Nepal who had worked and fought against Maoist guerrillas. Although many outside observers (including the U.S. government) consider the Maoists a terrorist group, they managed to enter politics and eventually take power in Nepal. The result was that when the guerrillas attempted to kill my client, there was no one to protect him. He fled the country and received refuge here.

Another client was a man from El Salvador whose relatives were murdered by gang members. The Salvadoran government was unable to control the gang, and so the man fled to the U.S., where he received protection.

I’ve represented an old lady from Iraq. A Shi’ite militia kidnapped her son. There was no one to protect the family, so she paid a ransom to have the son released. After that, the militia continued to extort and threaten her until she came to the U.S. and received asylum.

The list goes on and on, and it’s not just an absence of government; it’s bad government: A Falun Gong practitioner who was beaten by Chinese officials; a Somali man, shot in the leg by militiamen; an Ethiopian political activist beaten and tortured by police; a political activist from Zimbabwe who was raped by police after she attended a political rally; a Rwandan Tutsi woman who saw her family members murdered in front of her; a Syrian doctor held in a torture prison; a Russian political activist stripped of his citizenship and threatened; a gay man from Egypt beaten by the police; a lesbian from Serbia who was gang raped. And on and on and on. And that’s not counting all the corruption and discrimination that are endemic in most governments around the world, but which would not form the basis for an asylum claim.

From my point of view, there is great value in an honest (or at least mostly honest) bureaucracy. To disrespect our government workers, to punish them and hold them hostage to a political agenda, and to crush their morale is not just a disgrace. It demonstrates a shocking naivete about how the world works, and about how governments and economies work. Such naivete might be excusable in a college freshman enchanted by Ayn Rand, but it is criminally negligent in an elected official.

Since they don’t have the votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act–a law that has been properly voted on and survived a Supreme Court challenge, not to mention the re-election of President Obama–House Republicans have just shut the government down. They couldn’t do that to the United States and its employees unless they had utter contempt for those employees. That attitude moves our country in the direction of places without a good government; places like Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. 

So, House Republicans, I invite you to visit countries where government really is the problem. Or speak to my clients, who understand all too well what that means. Maybe if you were not so ignorant, you would be a bit more respectful of the people who keep our country great, our government employees.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Edward Snowden and the Realpolitik of Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

As of this writing, it appears that Edward Snowden, the NSA “whistleblower,” is holed up in the Moscow airport looking for a country to take him in. He already has offers of asylum from Bolivia, Venezuela, and (mi país) Nicaragua. I’ve previously written that Mr. Snowden likely does not qualify for asylum under international law, so why would these countries offer him refuge? The answer is what I would call the “realpolitik” of asylum law.

Realpolitik has been defined as “politics or diplomacy based primarily on power… rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises.”  

Remember when living in an airport used to be cute?
Remember when living in an airport used to be cute?

As applied to asylum law, realpolitik means that the receiving country is not concerned about whether the applicant meets the international law definition of refugee. Rather, the receiving country has some ulterior motive for granting asylum; it hopes to benefit itself or harm a rival by granting refuge.

In Mr. Snowden’s case, it’s not hard to imagine why certain countries–Russia, China, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua–have been willing to facilitate his journey. Russia and China, for example, have poor human rights records, authoritarian governments, and restrictions on press freedom (Freedom House rates both countries “not free”). China in particular is known for censoring the internet and cyber piracy. Venezuela has a less than stellar record when it comes to press freedom and free speech, and it apparently spies on its own citizens. Maybe by assisting Mr. Snowden, these countries hope to improve their own image while bringing the U.S. down a notch or two. Bolivia and Nicaragua perhaps see helping Mr. Snowden as “pay back” for years on the receiving end of American foreign policy (I’m thinking of the Contras in Nicaragua and–more recently–the diversion of the Bolivian president’s plane in an effort to capture Mr. Snowden).

In addition, all these countries might want to show the world that they are not afraid to stand up to the U.S. They might gain prestige (at least in their own minds) if they are seen confronting the big kid on the block.

Another reason that the different countries might offer asylum to Mr. Snowden is that they want to encourage people who damage the U.S. government’s foreign policy. Particularly when foreign relations are viewed as a zero sum game, it makes sense to diminish your rival in order to help yourself. I can see how this rationale might apply to China and the Latin American countries, but I am not sure it works with Russia. Both the U.S. and Russia have been harmed by extremist Islamic terrorists, and you’d think that there would be a mutual interest in fighting this threat (the two countries worked together after the Boston Marathon bombing, for example). It would seem to me that Russia’s protection of Mr. Snowden (and the implied endorsement of his actions) would be counter to that country’s interest in cooperating with us to stop terrorism.

Finally, I suppose it’s possible that the countries aiding Mr. Snowden are helping because they truly believe he did the right thing and they want to support him. Call me cynical, but this I doubt. The idea that Russia or China believe in the principle of government transparency is laughable. Even the Latin American countries, with their Left leaning governments that might support government transparency, seem more interested in antagonizing the U.S. and asserting their independence than in standing up for the principles that Mr. Snowden represents.

As a lawyer interested in humanitarian international law, I fear that when the asylum law is misused for realpolitik purposes, the system is weakened and made less legitimate. Asylum cases always implicate international relations; Mr. Snowden’s case more than most. But the hope is that such considerations can be minimized in order to provide protection to people fleeing persecution, regardless of the political consequences of granting (or denying) asylum.

Continue reading

5 Comments

Former CIA Official Reveals Secrets, Plans to Seek Asylum Abroad

by Jason Dzubow

The man who revealed the U.S. government’s program of secret surveillance, including of millions of U.S. citizens, has fled to Hong Kong and indicated that he will be seeking asylum from “any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy.”

Edward Snowden is a 29-year former CIA employee who was working for the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, where he contracted with the National Security Agency. The Washington Post describes the details of Mr. Snowden’s reveal:

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets….

Mr. Snowden fled to China, where stealing U.S. secrets is a national pastime.
Mr. Snowden fled to China, where stealing U.S. secrets is a national pastime.

The Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper responded to the revelations last week:

Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats. The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.

Mr. Snowden came forward and identified himself over the weekend. “I have no intention of hiding who I am,” he said, “because I know I have done nothing wrong.” Mr. Snowden is clearly convinced of the righteousness of his cause:

I can’t in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.

I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest. There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn’t turn over, because harming people isn’t my goal. Transparency is.

By revealing himself, Mr. Snowden has put his freedom and his future (and perhaps his life) at risk.

Here, I don’t want to discuss the virtues of Mr. Snowden’s actions (though I will note that I have been critical of another whistleblower/asylum seeker, Julian Assange, whose revelations put many people at risk). Rather, I want to discuss the merits of any potential asylum claim by Mr. Snowden.

To qualify for asylum under international law, a person must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion. At least under U.S. asylum law, whistleblowers have been found eligible for asylum in some circumstances:

Whistleblowing against one’s supervisors at work is not, as a matter of law, always an exercise of political opinion. However, where the whistle blows against corrupt government officials, it may constitute political activity sufficient to form the basis of persecution…

So the first question is whether Mr. Snowden’s actions constitute whistleblowing. I suppose that would depend on whether he was blowing the whistle against illegal activities or simply against activities that he disagreed with. If it was the latter, it would seem to me that granting him asylum would set a dangerous precedent. Does anyone who disagrees with a democratically elected government have the right to break laws they disagree with, search for a country willing to accept them, and then flee to that country for asylum? Sad to say, the answer is probably “yes,” but I think this does not bode well for international law or relations.

Reasonable minds can differ on whether Mr. Snowden’s actions were justified or whether they constitute whistleblowing. But assuming we accept that such actions are whistleblowing, we need to be prepared to deal with the consequential damage to the rule of law. 

Second, even if Mr. Snowden’s actions constitute whistleblowing and can be characterized as an expression of his political opinion, he still needs to demonstrate that he faces persecution–as opposed to prosecution–on account of those actions. While I would like to think that any asylum seeker fleeing the U.S. would have a hard time demonstrating that he faces prosecution, I am not so sure. Between waterboarding, indefinite detention, and the over-use of solitary confinement (not to mention the death penalty, which probably would not apply to him), an asylum seeker like Mr. Snowden can probably make a decent argument that he would suffer persecution if he were returned to the United States.

Overall, I think Mr. Snowden will have a difficult–but not impossible–time qualifying for asylum under international law. However, like Julian Assange, there will probably be a number of countries willing to offer him asylum. If so, it likely will not be based on a careful analysis of international law, but instead on a calculation of that country’s own interests vis-a-vis the United States.

Continue reading

3 Comments

You Can’t Go Home Again (Thanks to the Tsarnaev Brothers)

by Jason Dzubow

As the Senate inches forward on immigration reform, the bombing in Boston looms large. In a recent amendment, Senators agreed that asylum seekers will automatically lose their status if they return to their home country. According to the Washington Post:

Senators unanimously approved an amendment by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) that would terminate the asylum or refugee status of anyone who returns to his or her home country. Graham introduced the amendment after investigators discovered that Boston bombings suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev had traveled last year to Russia and Dagestan after his family sought and was granted asylum from Dagestan in 2002.

The Tsarnaev's also liked Justin Bieber. Therefore, under the new Senate bill, all immigrant Beliebers will be deported.
The Tsarnaev’s also liked Justin Bieber. Therefore, under the new Senate bill, all immigrant Beliebers will be deported.

I am sure, dear reader, that you will not be surprised to learn that I oppose this amendment. I oppose it because it is redundant, impractical, harmful to many innocent asylum seekers, and unlikely to accomplish its purported goal. Let’s take each objection in turn:

First, under the current law, if an asylee (or a lawful permanent resident who obtained his status based on asylum) returns to the country of feared persecution, he can lose his immigration status. The law as it exists now allows for some flexibility, and there is a procedure for terminating the alien’s asylum status. Given that an alien who returns to his home country will likely lose his asylum status, the Senate amendment seems redundant.

Second, the amendment is, at best, impractical. How will we know whether an alien has returned to her home country? Refugees are currently able to travel abroad using a Refugee Travel Document, which is similar to a passport. Let’s say a refugee wants to visit her home country. She can go to a neighboring country using the Refugee Travel Document, and then enter her home country with her passport. Or–better yet from her point of view–she can enter her home country without inspection (i.e., illegally). In either case, it is unlikely that the U.S. government would ever learn about the trip home.

And what about the scenario where a legitimate refugee travels abroad for a legitimate reason. He does not go to his home country, but his government lies and reports that he traveled home (the Russian government reported–truthfully–that Tamerlan Tsarnaev traveled to Dagestan). Perhaps the home government wants to harm the refugee, who the government views as a political opponent. Reports from unfriendly governments are potentially untrustworthy, so how can we rely on them?

Third, many innocent asylees have legitimate reasons to travel home: To help a sick relative, to engage in political or journalistic activities, to take care of property. Also, some people can travel home for a short trip and remain under the radar for their brief time in the home country. Just because a person is willing to take a risk and return home does not necessarily mean that she does not have a well-founded fear of persecution.

Finally, it’s hard for me to believe that this amendment would do anything to make us safer. Given how hard it is to determine whether an asylee traveled to his home country, and given the many legitimate reasons for such a journey, it seems very doubtful that the amendment will do anything to stop the next Tsarnaev-brothers type attack.

It seems to me that this amendment is an example of the Senate fighting the last war, and not fighting it very well. There are better ways to search for terrorists and extremists within the asylum seeker ranks. But I will leave that discussion for a future post.

Continue reading

218 Comments

In Defense of Muslim Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

Since the Boston bombing, we’ve heard much talk about restricting access to asylum (and immigration) for Muslims. Opponents of reform have wondered aloud how the Tsarnaev brothers entered the U.S. and why their father received asylum in the first place (the brothers obtained derivative asylum based on their father’s application). One commentator called for a halt to student visas for Muslims; another for an end to all Muslim immigration.

As Ben Franklin said, "Hang together or get hanged alone."
As Ben Franklin said, “We must all hang together or assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

The common belief among such people is that Muslims coming to America pose a threat. And even if only a small percentage of Muslims actually present a threat, we’re better off excluding all Muslims, just to be on the safe side.

Of course I disagree with this viewpoint. In my practice, I have represented many Muslim asylum seekers–from countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Somalia, and Syria. These are people who have devoted their lives–and often risked their lives–to promote democracy, women’s rights, and human rights. Many have served shoulder-to-shoulder with soldiers from the U.S. military in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s not uncommon for my clients to have letters of recommendation from members of the military, including high-ranking officers like Generals McChrystal and Petraeus. Indeed, I suspect that my Muslim clients have risked and sacrificed far more in the defense of liberty and in support of the U.S. than the commentators who routinely disparage them.

To illustrate the point, here is a sampling of a few of my recent cases involving Muslim asylum seekers (I have changed the names to protect my clients’ confidentiality):

Daoud is an Afghan man who worked as an interpreter for a private contractor. He served directly with soldiers from the United States military in Afghanistan and was several times in combat situations. His main job was to provide interpretation between the U.S. military and local people. He also provided cultural training to the soldiers. In a counterinsurgency operation, gaining the trust of local people is crucial for identifying and eliminating insurgents. Daoud’s role in his unit’s missions was indispensable. Along with Daoud’s application for asylum, we included letters attesting to his service from many members of the United States military. The letters came from soldiers who served with Daoud and from a two star general familiar with his work. We are currently waiting for a decision in his asylum case.

Fatima is a woman’s rights activist who founded an NGO to educate girls in Afghanistan. The NGO received support from USAID and other international donors, and expanded its work into many Afghan provinces. The Taliban learned of Fatima’s activities and repeatedly threatened her. At some point, the threats became too much, and she decided it was unsafe for her to return to Afghanistan. Her asylum application is pending.

Brahim is an Egyptian activist for gay rights and women’s rights. After the Egyptian revolution, he faced increasing harassment from government officials. He was attacked on several occasions and the police refused to help (once, they actually detained him, even though he was the victim of an assault). With the ascendance of the Muslim Brotherhood, he felt unable to remain safely in Egypt. His application for asylum has received preliminary approval.

Abdul is a journalist and peace activist from Iran. He is also related to an important Iranian opposition leader who lives in exile. Abdul assisted that leader by providing on-the-scene reporting from Tehran during the Green Revolution. After he went to study abroad, the Iranian authorities arrested Abdul’s girlfriend and threatened to arrest him. Rather than return to Iran, Abdul filed for political asylum. His application was granted earlier this year.

These cases are typical of the Muslim asylum seekers that I have represented. They—and thousands like them—have fought and sacrificed and bled in the war against Islamic extremism.

In the aftermath of the Boston attack, perpetrated by two brothers who received asylum in the United States, I understand the desire to examine security procedures for asylum seekers. When you extend a helping hand and then get bit, it’s only natural to hesitate before helping again. But as we think about changing the asylum system in response to the terrorist attack, we should keep in mind people like my clients and the many Muslims who have demonstrated their fealty to us in our fight against extremism.

We should not allow the evil deed of the Tsarnaev brothers to cause us to retreat from our humanitarian obligations, which would compromise our principles, or to weaken our commitment to our Muslim allies, who are crucial in our battle against Islamic terrorists. When making changes to our asylum system, we should be guided by our highest ideals, not by the dark vision of the Tsarnaev brothers.

Continue reading

2 Comments

CIS Uses Boston Attack to Condemn Asylum, Immigration System

by Jason Dzubow

The “low immigration, pro-immigrant” group Center for Immigration Studies claims that the “United States has naturalized at least a few thousand alleged terrorists in recent years.” As evidence for this dramatic claim, CIS lists exactly four (four!) examples of naturalized foreigners who engaged (or attempted to engage) in terrorist acts, including Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who is charged in the Boston Marathon bombing.

Hmm... There's something strange about this Naturalization ceremony.
Hmm… There’s something strange about this Naturalization ceremony.

How CIS got from four alleged terrorists to “thousands” is not explained. Although I often disagree with CIS’s conclusions, I’ve found them to be generally reliable when it comes to the facts. Not so in this case. To make such an outrageous and inflammatory claim with almost no evidence casts doubt on the organization’s credibility.

Concerned about the possibility of major immigration reform, is CIS becoming unhinged? Will they–like so many partisan groups–make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims in the hope of getting their way (i.e., killing immigration reform)?

It seems that in many of our country’s policy debates, the end justifies the means. “Swiftboating” has replaced reasoned debate. I hope that CIS won’t go down this road. Like I say, I often disagree with CIS, but I recognize the need for different voices in the conversation. For those voices to make a positive impact, however, they must be grounded in reality. CIS should correct their unfounded claim that the U.S. has “naturalized at least a few thousand alleged terrorists,” and issue an apology.

With that as background, I want to turn briefly to CIS’s testimony on Capitol Hill. This past Monday, Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of CIS testified about the proposed immigration reform before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He spoke about the Tsarnaev family who–he said–immigrated to the United States a decade ago after receiving political asylum. Mr. Krikorian asked:

Why were they given asylum since they had passports from Kyrgyzstan and, especially, why were they given asylum since the parents have moved back to Russia, the country supposedly they were fleeing and wanted asylum from?

A few points. Maybe this is an immigration-lawyer-geek point, but by definition, no one immigrates to the U.S. after receiving political asylum. It is only possible to obtain political asylum if you are already present in the United States. In the case of the Tsarnaev family, events are a bit unclear. It appears that the father came as a non-immigrant to the United States in 2002 with Dzhokhar, and then applied for–and received–political asylum. Afterward, he brought his wife and minor children (including alleged bomber Tamerlan) to the United States. Maybe this is a geek point, but if I were from an immigration organization testifying before Congress, I would want to get the law and terminology correct.

Second, I do not know how Mr. Krikorian knows that the Tsarnaev family had passports from Kyrgyzstan. As far as I know, the family were Russian citizens, and the father was originally from Chechnya, which is part of Russia. While it appears that at least the younger brother was born in Kyrgyzstan, this does not necessarily mean that he had a Kyrgz passport or was a citizen of that country (unlike the U.S., many countries do not automatically confer citizenship on people born within their territory). Assuming that the father had Kyrgz citizenship, he would not have qualified for asylum unless he demonstrated that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Kyrgyzstan or that he was not firmly resettled in that country. As of now, we do not know why the father received asylum from Russia, let alone from Kyrgyzstan. Suffice it to say that the human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan is no picnic, and that country has produced several hundred thousand refugees. While Mr. Krikorian’s question (why was the family given asylum if they had passports from Kyrgyzstan?) is reasonable, the implied answer (that the family should not have received asylum) is pure speculation.

Finally, Mr. Krikorian asks why the family received asylum since the parents have moved back to Russia, the country supposedly they were fleeing. Again, the implication is that the family should not have received asylum. Mr. Krikorian does not answer his own question, and indeed, we do not know why the father returned to Russia. Maybe he felt that conditions had improved and it would be safe for him to return. Maybe the father was more concerned with his children’s safety than his own, and so once his children were safely in the U.S., he decided to return. Or maybe–as Mr. Krikorian implies–the asylum case was fraudulent from the beginning. At this point, we don’t know. And while I agree that we need to explore all aspects of the brothers’ history, I am not sure that the investigation is well served by cynical assumptions that the father’s asylum claim was false.

As I have said, I often disagree with CIS, but I believe they (and other restrictionist groups) have an important role to play in the current discussion about immigration and asylum reform. I just believe that the debate–and the credibility of CIS–would be better served if the organization speculated a little less, and got the facts right a little more.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Immigration, Asylum Reform and the New Terrorism

by Jason Dzubow

The situation is still developing in Boston.  As of this writing, one terrorist is dead; another is on the loose, and a third man–dubbed “an accomplice”–is in police custody. There are still many unanswered questions about the men’s motivation and what connections, if any, they have to other terrorists. One thing we do now know is that the two men who placed the bombs are from Chechnya.

Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation. It has been seeking independence since the break-up of the Soviet Union. The state is majority Muslim and the war against Russia has attracted radical Islamists and has helped radicalize some of the indigenous population. The Russian government has committed terrible atrocities in Chechnya, and Chechen separatists are some of the most evil terrorists around (their worst attack came in 2004, when they took an entire school hostage–in the end, over 380 people were killed, including many, many children).

We still do not know if the Boston attack was somehow related to the conflict in Chechnya, but here are some things we do know: The two bombers were brothers who came to the United States legally with their family. The older brother has been a lawful permanent resident since 2007. At least one brother had a driver’s license (apparently, investigators used facial recognition software to help match a photo of the man with his driver’s license). The younger brother attended school in the U.S., at least since the seventh grade.

One question is how they obtained legal status here? Slate reports that the family escaped the war in Chechnya and went to Kazakhstan and then came to the U.S. as refugees. If this is correct, it will raise questions about the U.S refugee program. I have discussed this issue before, and perhaps will revisit the question once we have more information.

Another question is whether the men were sent here to commit terrorist acts? If it is correct that the brothers have been LPRs since 2007, it seems unlikely that they were sent to the U.S. to engage in terrorist acts. Once a refugee arrives in the U.S., he can become an LPR after one year. This means that the brothers–ages 26 and 19–must have been here since at least 2006. In 2006, they would have been ages 19 and 12. I doubt they could have been sent here at those ages with the idea that they would attack U.S. targets years later. It seems more likely that they somehow got involved in terrorism while in the United States.  

A final questions (for now), is how the revelation that the attackers were Chechen will affect the debate over immigration and asylum reform. I have no doubt that opponents of reform will use the attack to try to derail any new law. But on the other hand, when something like this happens, it is perfectly legitimate to raise security concerns. On this point, I would offer a few observations:

– Immigration reform brings otherwise invisible people out of the shadows. If we legalize people who have been here for years, we learn more about those people. One of the Boston terrorists was identified, in part, because he had a driver’s license. If he was living here illegally, he might not appear in any state or federal database. Thus, legalization reduces the number of unknown people and helps us know more about the people who are here.

– Second, if we are worried about terrorists within our foreign-born populations, we should encourage people within those communities to cooperate and trust law enforcement officials. If foreigners without legal status are afraid of law enforcement, it is less likely that they will cooperate with government investigations. If such people have a path to lawful status, they will be less afraid, and thus more likely to cooperate.

– Finally, the vast majority of immigrants and asylees are law abiding. Many of my asylum-seeker clients have worked closely with the U.S. military in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. They have risked their lives to fight terrorists and extremists. Punishing and stigmatizing such people, and hundreds of thousands of other law-abiding foreigners, for the actions of two or three terrorists is simply wrong. And, in a country premised on individual rights and responsibilities, it is un-American.

In the coming days and weeks, we will learn much more about the terrorists, their motivation, and how they got to the U.S. We will also learn how the attack will impact the debate over immigration reform. While national security issues should certainly be a part of this debate, I hope that the attack will not destroy the hopes of thousands of good, law abiding immigrants.

Continue reading

8 Comments

To the Security Officers of the World: Thank You

by Jason Dzubow

In light of the terrorist attack in Boston earlier this week, I wanted to write about security at Immigration Courts, USCIS, and the Asylum Offices.

As of this writing, we don’t know who perpetrated the attack on the Boston Marathon. But we do know that as residents of a free society, we are vulnerable. We also know that people who would harm others have all too easy access to powerful weapons: guns, explosives, you name it.

Bull
Don’t forget to thank the people who keep us safe.

In the context of immigration, there are those in our society who not only oppose immigration and immigrants, but who hate foreigners and would do them—and the Americans who work with them—harm. Behind such people are others—people who would not engage in physical violence themselves, but who encourage such behavior in others with their racism and xenophobia. For these people, their hate is matched only by their dishonesty. Because if a person is honest, and considers perspectives other than his own, it is hard to hate. I am thinking about people like Pam Geller, who says that all Muslims are terrorists and “savages,” Lou Dobbs, who claims that illegal immigrants bring bubonic plague, and Pat Buchanan who is fighting to preserve white America (ok, I admit to a soft spot for Pat Buchanan; at least he is entertaining). But I digress.

For the small number of people who might consider attacking immigrants and “the system,” Immigration Courts, USCIS, and the Asylum Offices are potential targets.

Of course, such offices are part of the federal government, protected by armed guards and metal detectors. Before this week, I hadn’t given it much thought. Mostly, I assumed that the security officers were there in case an immigrant becomes violent (or, perhaps more likely, a lawyer becomes violent and decides to clobber his client). But in the aftermath of the Boston attack, I am reminded that the officers are there to protect the immigrants, their advocates, and government employees from harm.

I suppose it is an obvious point, but for busy people (like me) who view the security checks as a nuisance, it is important to remember how essential they are. Also, lest anyone thinks security officers at the Immigration Courts (and elsewhere) don’t put their lives on the line, check out this virtual tribute to private security officers killed in the line of duty.

Today, I passed through three different security check points—at my son’s day care (he’s in a federal building), the Asylum Office, and the Immigration Court. I try to be friendly to the officers whenever I see them and to thank them, but it’s not always easy when I am rushing from one place to the next. Today, I tried to make a special effort to express my thanks, and going forward, I will try to be better about that. So, to the extent that anyone pays attention to what I write here, I’d like to say to the security officers who protect us: Thank you.

Continue reading