Tag Archive for: NSEERS

Cyrus Mehta

Trump’s Cruel Immigration Policies Have No Rational Justification Except to Harass and Intimidate Immigrants such as the Alien Registration Requirement 

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

The Trump administration recently announced that it would enforce INA § 262, which requires noncitizens aged 14 years or older to register with the government if they were not already registered and fingerprinted when applying for a U.S. visa. Children are required to reregister within 30 days of their 14th birthday. The following categories of noncitizens have already registered by virtue of their manner of entry into the U.S., or through an application later filed with USCIS: 

  • Lawful permanent residents;
  • Noncitizens paroled into the United States under INA 212(d)(5), even if the period of parole has expired;
  • Noncitizens admitted to the United States as nonimmigrants who were issued Form I-94 or I-94W (paper or electronic), even if the period of admission has expired;
  • All noncitizens present in the United States who were issued immigrant or nonimmigrant visas prior to arrival;
  • Noncitizens whom DHS has placed into removal proceedings;
  • Noncitizens issued an employment authorization document;
  • Noncitizens who have applied for lawful permanent residence using Forms I-485, I-687, I-691, I-698, I-700, even if the applications were denied; and
  • Noncitizens issued Border Crossing Cards. 

Many other categories of noncitizens may be required to comply with the registration requirement, including those who “are present in the United States without inspection and admission or inspection and parole; Canadian visitors who entered the United States at land ports of entry and were not issued evidence of registration; and,[noncitizens] who submitted one or more benefit requests to USCIS not listed in 8 CFR 264.1(a), including applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or Temporary Protected Status, who were not issued evidence of registration.” As of the date of publication of this blog, DHS has yet to officially promulgate a registration form or further instructions. 

Although the provision referencing registration at INA § 262 existed, it was rarely enforced and the new announcement either literally interprets a 1952 statutes or reinterprets it in a way that highlights this administration’s animus towards immigrants. These include Canadian visitors, DACA recipients, and children who received visa stamps, including H-4 visas, before their 14th birthday to register upon turning 14. Failure to comply may result in “criminal and civil penalties, up to and including misdemeanor prosecution and the payment of fines”. The planned registration system has a predecessor in the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), which, unlike the Trump administration’s policy, was created in response to a pressing national security concern – the September 11 terrorist attacks. NSEERS resulted in widespread confusion and discriminatory enforcement, particularly towards Muslim noncitizens. The Trump administration’s registration system is likely to have similar consequences. 

USCIS also recently gave notice of the planned promulgation of a new form to designed to “establish enhanced screening and vetting standards and procedures to enable USCIS to assess an alien’s eligibility to receive an immigration-related benefit.” The form would apply to numerous immigration applications, including applications for asylum, adjustment of status, naturalization, and travel documents. It would collect a total of 24 items of information about applicants, including the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of family members such as parents, spouses, siblings, and children. Requiring applicants for immigration benefits to disclose this information could deter some from filing altogether, particularly if they fear exposing undocumented family members to immigration enforcement. 

The Trump administration’s pattern of enacting inhumane immigration is further evidenced by its decision to end the Biden-era parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, termination of the Uniting for Ukraine program, and its termination of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Venezuela. Trump further plans to pause the adjudication of any applications for immigration benefits, which could include asylum or family-based adjustment of status applications, submitted by noncitizens who entered the United States pursuant to a parole program. These people played by the rules and were paroled into the US following the instructions of the Biden administration, and now the Trump administration has pulled the rug from under their feet.  Another example of a viciously inhumane policy is the restriction of birthright citizenship to only children born in the US to at least one parent who is a citizen or a permanent resident, see our blogs here and here, via an executive order. Fortunately, the courts have blocked the Trump’s unconstitutional reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution for now, but if this policy took effect, it would render children undocumented, stateless or as temporary nonimmigrants, from the moment they are born. It would also create a permanent underclass. 

Among Trump’s cruelest immigration policies to date has been the transfer of a group of primarily Venezuelan nationals with final orders of removal to Guantanamo Bay, a detention facility known for abusive conditions that was set up to detain alleged terrorists after 9/11. The administration has also removed asylum seekers to Panama and Costa Rica, where some were held in hotels for days on end and afforded no opportunity to seek legal relief. Caleb Vitello, formerly acting director of ICE, was required by the Trump administration to personally sign off on releases of any noncitizens from detention, before being summarily dismissed from his position, allegedly for being too pro-immigrant and not removing enough people.  

Taken together, these policies, and many more cruel policies that we have not addressed here,  illustrate a pattern of harassment and cruelty towards immigrants. Noncitizens who are intimidated and do not register may incur penalties and difficulty applying for immigration benefits in the future, while those who fear providing information about family members may forego filing applications with USCIS. The termination of parole programs and Venezuelan TPS will result in recipients losing work authorization and potentially needing to leave the U.S. These policies will not only be detrimental to immigrants, but also to their American family members and employers. 

There has been a dark history in the US resulting in the scapegoating of immigrants in times of crisis.  A recent example was the restrictions imposed on noncitizens after the September 11, 2001 attack, which included the NSEERS program that resulted in religious, racial and ethnic profiling (see Have We Learned the Lessons of History? World War II Japanese Internment and Today’s Secret Detentions by Stanley Mark, Suzette Brooks Masters and Cyrus D. Mehta).  The delicate balance we strive to achieve as a nation between liberty and security inevitably tips towards security, and civil liberties tend to be compromised. While there can never be a justification to go after immigrants in a time of genuine crisis, Trump has manufactured a crisis to justify his administration’s wantonly cruel attacks on immigrants. The supposed justification for unleashing such cruel policies is based on the ‘Protecting the American People Against Invasion” executive order. The executive order falsely claims that millions of illegal immigrants were invited to the US by the prior administration even though most were paroled into the US under INA 212(d)(5) or sought to apply for asylum under INA. The executive order then makes the exaggerated claim without foundation that “many of these aliens unlawfully within the United States present significant threats to national security and public safety, committing vile and heinous acts against innocent Americans. Others are engaged in hostile activities, including espionage, economic espionage, and preparations for terror-related activities.” While some immigrants may commit crimes, as would US citizens, in any random sampling of a population,  they can be dealt with on an individualized basis through the criminal justice system. Whether the crisis is real or manufatured, there is absolutely no justification for this sort of hate towards immigrants. 

*Kaitlyn Box is a Partner at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

The authors thank David Isaacson for suggesting additional cruelest policies of the Trump administration towards immigrants. 

 

David Isaacson

Extreme Absurdity: A Response to the “Extreme Vetting” Questions Proposed By Potential DHS Secretary Kris Kobach

/0 Comments/in /by

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, rumored to be a potential Secretary of Homeland Security in a Donald Trump Administration, met with Mr. Trump last Sunday, apparently to discuss some of his plans for the Department.  During a media photo opportunity, Mr. Kobach held a binder and stack of papers in such a way that a page was left partially visible and allowed an Associated Press photographer to capture some of the “Department of Homeland Security Kobach Strategic Plan for First 365 Days.”  Although there are many horrifying things about that plan, some of which this author may address further in future blogs, one aspect of Kobach’s plan that particularly caught my attention was the proposal to “Add extreme vetting questions for high-risk aliens: question them regarding support for Sharia law, jihad, equality of men and women, the United States Constitution.”  This blog provides an initial reaction to that proposal.

It appears that by “high-risk aliens”, Kobach was likely referring predominantly to aliens from countries with a large Muslim population, or perhaps just Muslims themselves.  In the immediately prior item of his outline, Kobach describes the NSEERS (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System) program he wants to “update and reintroduce” as “track[ing]” “all aliens from high-risk areas.”  In its original form, NSEERS applied to men over the age of 25 from 25 countries, all but one of which was a Muslim-majority country.  (Specifically, NSEERS included nonimmigrants from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and the one exception, North Korea.)  Thus, Kobach evidently associates “high-risk areas” predominantly with Muslim countries.  It is not entirely clear whether by “high-risk aliens” he means to describe only those from the so-called “high-risk areas”, or whether he would cast a broader net.

Of the four questions that Kobach proposes to ask the “high-risk aliens”, the question about “support for  . . . the United States Constitution” is comparatively unobjectionable, other than with respect to the discriminatory context in which he apparently proposes to ask it.  Applicants for naturalization as U.S. citizens are already required by law to be “attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States,” INA 316(a).  The Form N-400 Application for Naturalization already asks applicants, “Do you support the Constitution and form of government of the United States?”  One might perhaps take issue with Kobach’s apparent proposal to expand use of this question outside the naturalization context in which it was statutorily authorized, but it is the other three proposed questions that are truly problematic.

To ask Muslim immigrants about their “support for Sharia law” is rather like asking Jewish immigrants about their “support for Halacha”, or Catholic immigrants about their “support for canon law”, or other Christian immigrants about their “support for Biblical principles”.  While the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church has the advantage from an American perspective of having an English common name, many Americans may not realize that Sharia is merely an Arabic word for traditional Muslim religious law, just as Halacha – another word with which many Americans may not be familiar – is merely a Hebrew word for traditional Jewish religious law.  Different Muslims will have different interpretations of what “Sharia law” has to say about a particular subject, just as different Jews will have different interpretations of what “Halacha” has to say about a particular subject.  (Some subgroups of Muslims may entirely dispute the applicability of Sharia as historically understood, just as Reform Judaism differentiates between its approach to one’s relationship with God and the approach suggested by Halacha.)  Some may cite Sharia to justify horrific actions, but then again Yigal Amir claimed that his assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was justified by Jewish religious law; in neither case is it appropriate to charge all followers of the religion or some version of its laws with support for the horrific actions in question.   To ask about “support for Sharia law” sheds only very limited light on what the person being asked actually believes, even if we indulge the questionable assumption that anyone’s religious beliefs are the proper concern of the U.S. government.  Perhaps it would be a different story if Kobach proposed to ask a more nuanced question about whether those seeking to come to the United States believed that any and all religious law should be subordinate to democratically enacted civil law, but it does not appear that this is what he has in mind.

Kobach’s proposed question about “jihad” suffers from a somewhat similar defect.  The word “jihad” literally means “struggle” or “effort”, and the BBC has said that “Many modern writers claim that the main meaning of Jihad is the internal spiritual struggle”, although there is also support for interpreting the word to mean a military struggle.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary recognizes multiple meanings of the word, ranging from “a holy war waged on behalf of Islam” to “a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline” to “a crusade for a principle or belief”.  We do not assume that supporters of Campus Crusade for Christ will use violence in their struggle to spread Christianity, nor do we ask Christian prospective immigrants their opinion of the medieval Crusades.  If Kobach had proposed to ask a more general question about support for the use of violence, or even the use of violence motivated by perceived religious conflict, that would be a different story, but his proposed inquiry only covers this single word.  Norwegian far-right terrorist Anders Behring Brevik believed that he was at war with Muslims.  Had we known this, does Kobach believe we should not have excluded Brevik if he had applied to come to the United States, but should have excluded any Muslim victims of his who supported internal spiritual struggle?

Even Kobach’s proposed question about “equality of men and women”, innocuous though it may seem and tied to an important American civic value though it may be, has a problematic dimension in the context of questioning that would apparently be directed towards religious beliefs.  A number of religions that Kobach presumably does not wish to target do not provide for strict equality of men and women, in the sense of the rights of men and women in a specifically religious context.  Less than a month ago, Pope Francis ruled out the possibility of a woman ever serving as a Catholic priest.  Female rabbis are extremely rare in Orthodox Judaism, with one first taking the title just this year, and with one main U.S. Orthodox rabbinical group having purported to ban the practice roughly a year ago, although female rabbis have been common in the Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative movements of American Judaism over the past several decades.  In many Orthodox Jewish interpretations of Halacha, ten men, not women, are required to make up a “minyan”, or quorum to say certain prayers, although the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly in the Conservative Movement has ruled that women can count towards a minyan.  Some Christians believe that wives should submit to their husbands.  Could followers of those beliefs truthfully say, under penalty of perjury, that they supported full equality of men and women?  While I vehemently disagree with those who would deny women full religious equality, and I personally favor a more gender-egalitarian approach, it seems to me that it would represent a major break with our own civic traditions for the U.S. government to exclude immigrants who hold the less egalitarian Christian or Orthodox Jewish beliefs discussed above—or the Muslim analogue of those beliefs.

Kris Kobach’s proposed “extreme vetting” questions would not be the first time the U.S. government has utilized a problematically worded question against a minority group.  In the Japanese-American internment camps of the Second World War era, even U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were asked whether they would “forswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese emperor, or any other foreign government, power, or organization?”  Many of these citizens “resented being asked to renounce loyalty to the Emperor of Japan when they had never held a loyalty to the Emperor.”  (The question might be compared in this respect to the old example of an unfair yes-or-no question, “have you stopped beating your wife?”)

The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II has been widely recognized as a horrible mistake, and survivors of the camps were awarded restitution in 1988 as well as given a formal apology by the U.S. government.  However, one prominent supporter of Donald Trump recently made news by suggesting that the internment of Japanese-Americans was a “precedent” for a registry of Muslims.  That supporter had, in fact, raised the analogy in support of Mr. Kobach’s proposal to reinstate NSEERS, which is related to his proposed “extreme vetting” questions as discussed above.  The parallels are extremely troubling.  While it may seem that “extreme vetting” questions regarding aspects of religious belief are some distance away from actual internment of a minority group, it is important, as the Supreme Court said in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette of a different attempt to enforce government-sponsored doctrine (regarding a mandatory flag salute), that we “avoid those ends by avoiding those beginnings.”  This is not a road down which the United States should travel.