Our Basic Layer Of Security Is Still Whacked!

Seized With Heavy Hand at Border, for Paperwork Errors - New York Times
By NINA BERNSTEIN

"One is a second grader in Manhattan. Over the protests of his American mother, immigration officials have been trying to deport him ever since he returned from a brief visit to his native Canada without the right visa. Another is an Irish professor of literature invited to teach at the University of Pennsylvania last month. He was handcuffed at the Philadelphia airport, strip-searched, jailed overnight and sent back to Europe to correct an omission in his travel papers."

Can we not see that our efforts to tighten security and protect our borders is out of focus? What danger does a second grader present to our national security? Can we calim that this is just treatment under our laws? Do clerical errors represent national security threats? Does an ommission in paperwork warrant an arrest, strip-search and jail? Was there not a more reasonable method or procedure?

Again, we can see that what we need is a more reasoned approach to the layers of security that ACTUALLY provides security. These incidents are as ridiculous as asking an elderly woman in a wheelchair to remove clothing or a lactating mother to sip her own breast milk out of a pre-prepared bottle to prove that there are no hidden weapons. While we are screwing around with silliness, our baggage areas are still not secure, our airports do not have adequate systems for explosive detection, out transportation security forces are inadequately trained (and provided in inadequate numbers), our train stations are unprotected and real threats are still within our borders WITHOUT having any legitimate reason for being here.

"Then there are the seven Tibetan monks who were visiting Omaha two weeks ago. After their church sponsor abruptly withdrew its support, their religious visas were revoked and a dozen immigration officers in riot gear showed up to arrest them."

I can understand the arrest, but INS doesn't show up to a bust of illegals working in the garment districts of New York with a tactical team, why would arresting seven Buddhist monks call for such force? Do Tibetans represent a larger threat than illegals from Honduras, Guatemala or Mexico? Why would that be the case? Are we dealing with some sort of profiling based on ethnicity, race, religion or place of origin? If that is the case, one would expect that such a profile would target illegals from Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Syria, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan--all of whom would probably be Muslims not Buddhists--rather than monks from Tibet. While I will not support profiling in its entirety, it certainly makes sense to provide greater scrutiny for foreigners visiting our nation from point of origin that have actually had terrorist connections. Last time I checked, the Dalai Lama and his monks were not members of an Islamic terrorist organization. We need to train our INS folks better. This type of ridiculous effort in immigration enforcement serves only to make us look foolish and does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for real security.

"The details in these cases vary, as do the technical visa infractions committed by each of the foreigners. But they all testify to a larger issue looming on the front lines of immigration enforcement: how low-level gatekeepers and prosecutors in the customs and immigration system are using their growing discretionary power over travelers who pose no security risk."

According to so many of the ultra-conservatives, we are a Christian nation. While I do not believe such is the case, I do believe that we are a nation of principles. None of those principles are served by this type of unwarranted behavior on the part of our government. We need to protect our nation. We need to tighten security. We need to find and arrest those that seek to place us at risk. But we also need to do so in a way that doesn't reduce us to the same status as the Gestapo, the KGB, the secret police in North Korea, or any other fascist, communist or authoritarian group. Our freedom is what makes us the great nation that we are... our fear is causing us to forget the importance of that freedom and sacrifice our principles. We are acting like thugs, not leaders.

"Officials of the Department of Homeland Security have acknowledged that intensified efforts to keep out terrorists since the 9/11 attacks have sometimes led to the heavy-handed treatment of foreigners whose only offense was an inadvertent paperwork error or being caught in a bureaucratic tangle. In memos issued in 2004 and 2005, agency officials encouraged officers to use discretion and legal shortcuts to resolve such cases quickly, saving resources for more important tasks and showing the world a more welcoming face."

In other words, they are being encouraged to cut corners to our due process provisions of the Constitution. The public relations image of doing something--anything, so long as it looks like something of importance--has become more important than actually providing real security. The best forms of national security are those that do not enter the public view until the arrests and prudent steps are already done and the matters are in front of a competent court.

"But immigration lawyers say the effort is not working. Though there are no statistics on such cases, the lawyers say they are seeing harsher treatment in situations involving paperwork errors or minor infractions. A political climate more hostile to foreigners, fears of being faulted for leniency and a lack of coordination among immigration agencies, they say, are leading officers to go overboard in cases that fit the government guidelines for prosecutorial discretion."

Additionally, there are reports that these "discretionary" provisions are making it more difficult for the targets of these methods to obtain legal advice and representation. These discretionary procedures are creating barriers to legal representation and more effective methods of resolving the clerical errors. Quite frankly, these are the tactics I saw when I crossed the border from Bahrain to Saudi Arabia, not those I would expect from our democratic government. Are we becoming the depots we despise?

"'I'm desperate,' Emily Arroyo, the mother of the second grader, said last week, after prosecutors refused an immigration judge's suggestion that they drop the two-year-old deportation case against her son, José Arroyo Rodas. Instead, they demanded that she buy him a one-way ticket to Canada by next week."

Good God! What a ridiculous expectation. Last time I checked, Canadian citizens were representatives of a nation strongly allied with the United States. The greatest conflicts we have ever had with Canada are over trade balances, environment and our use of military force in places where we have violated international laws. Does a seven year-old kid really represent that great a threat?

"'I'm American — they're making me leave my country, too, because of course I'm not going to let him go alone,' said Ms. Arroyo, a hairstylist raised in Guatemala, who calculates that she has spent $10,000 in legal fees trying in vain to fix José's paperwork problem. But on Wednesday, hours after this reporter asked United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in Washington for comment about the case, an agency spokesman, Marc Raimondi, said that prosecutors reviewing the matter had found that it met the guidelines for prosecutorial discretion. 'A dismissal recommendation to the immigration judge is planned,' he said."

It seems that this case became a public relations disaster (as it should have). But are our laws a matter of public relations or are they based on justice like the Constitution demands in its Preamble? Are we a nation of laws and justice, or are we a nation that allows the intimidation of a kid in elementary school?

"Kelly Klundt, a spokeswoman for Customs and Border Protection, which is also part of Homeland Security, said that as its officers process 86 million air travelers a year and enforce 400 different laws, 'there are unfortunately going to be a few instances that do not demonstrate perfect discretion.'"

When I served in the military, this would have been an unacceptable answer, especially in matters of security. There is no excuse for such inappropriate actions. There are--or there are supposed to be--supervisors, prosecutors and managers that review all cases brought before the INS courts. Where have these people been? What have they been doing? Why aren't they using their training, authority and reasoning to screen these matters out.

"'Achieving a balance of being a welcoming nation and keeping the borders secure is terribly difficult,' she added. 'We are seeking to improve the way we handle all of these types of situations.'"

The reason it is difficult is that we are not fulfilling the basics of proper security. Our databases are not accurate (remember the principle of GIGO), our personnel are not properly trained, our ranks are not properly filled, and we are cutting corners on principles. There are ways to make this process easier and more effective.

"But a case like José's only confirms that without exceptional outside attention or high-level intervention, rigidity prevails, said Diane M. Butler, a Seattle lawyer who heads the American Immigration Lawyers Association committee that works with Customs and Border Protection."

This is one of those barriers that are "inadvertantly" being created by these discretionary procedures and ploicies. How often will such a case get the attention of someone with the authority for "high-level intervention"? In our current fear-driven security-conscious modlaity, most of our congress critters have been willing to give the executive branch carte blanche. So much so that it was recently announced that there is an agreement to renew the Patriot Act despite the fact that there have been obvious abuses of that law by the Bush administration. While it is reported that there are some changes and new restrictions, no one is willing to admit that this was essentially a bad law. The only provision that needs to be renewed is the part that allows the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share information. Everything else in the law is inherently repugnant to the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

"'Most officers,' she [Butler] said, 'are trying to do the right thing, but lack training in how to apply discretion. But, in some instances,' she added, 'officers seem newly emboldened by campaigns against illegal immigration to express their resentment of foreigners by denying or delaying entry whenever possible.' She said her business clients reported remarks like, 'You're just trying to take jobs away from Americans.'"

It is SO obvious that training is needed. But an effective approach that is not based on prejudices, bias or innacurate profiling is also needed.

"Other immigrant advocates say that low-level employees often act out of fear. 'The people on the front line are told that if they make a mistake, their jobs are gone,' said Amy L. Peck, an immigration lawyer in Omaha who heads the association committee that works with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 'So that translates into this rigid — what one could also describe as extreme — policy of turning away and not using discretion in cases that scream for it.'"

So, the problem goes deeper than the gate-keepers and the lowest rungs of employment in the national security agencies. The problem is a top-down ignorance and an overall environment of fear. We must abandon our fears and put our security back on track by adhering to principles and expertise.

"The Irish professor, John McCourt, 40, said that on Jan. 7, an immigration officer at Philadelphia International Airport initially offered to correct a paperwork omission on the spot if he paid a $265 fine. Professor McCourt said he readily agreed, but five minutes later, the officer returned and said she had changed her mind — 'that I was a university professor and should have known better' and would be sent back the same night."

Given the entanglements of international travel, especially in these times of heightened fear, one could see how even a professor of LITERATURE could have difficulty filling out forms and making sure all the necessary items are completed... don't we all have great difficulty filling out our "simplified" tax forms? Can we not see the unreasonableness of the process? Wouldn't this also be the fault of the US authority (presumably the embassy or consulate in Italy) that issued, received and approved the forms and visas?

"In an e-mail message, Professor McCourt, a James Joyce specialist at the University of Trieste in Italy, wrote: 'I was told that if I protested I would simply be deported and never be let back.'"

Aren't we so very reasonable! Being a thug is trickling all the way down from the White House... Maybe it was Karl Rove that developed the discretionary policies?

"In Italy, Professor McCourt quickly fixed his paperwork at the American consulate in Florence, and returned to start his classes at Penn a week late. But in New York last week, where he spoke at Fordham University on 'Joyce and Judaism,' he said his experience had confirmed his European friends' worst fears about America."

The vast amjority of Americans do not relaize that our government is creating fear among most European leaders and citizens. America has too many black eyes when it comes to matters of security and world affairs.

Wake up, my fellow Americans! Our rights, freedom and our reputation are being cast aside to forward the agenda of fear-mongers and war hawks.