Immigration Law as Anti-Terror Tool

[MountainLaurel]

Soul Khalil woke with a start. Her split-level home in Burke was shuddering, and the oppressive hum of a helicopter filled the room. Then she heard the pounding on the front door. "Police!" the voices yelled. She shook her husband. "Hassan! You hear that banging?" she later recalled saying.

Her husband, in his shorts, stumbled into the hallway. At the end of it was a masked agent, his gun drawn. "Get down!" he yelled, according to the husband's recollection. The Lebanese immigrant dropped onto his stomach, and the officers cuffed his hands behind his back. The charge: lying on his immigration documents.

snip

Khalil's arrest is part of a broad anti-terrorism effort being waged with a seemingly innocuous weapon: immigration law. In the past two years, officials have filed immigration charges against more than 500 people who have come under scrutiny in national security investigations, according to previously undisclosed government figures. Some are ultimately found to have no terrorism ties, officials acknowledge.

Whereas terrorism charges can be difficult to prosecute, Homeland Security officials say immigration laws can provide a quick, easy way to detain people who could be planning attacks. Authorities have also used routine charges such as overstaying a visa to deport suspected supporters of terrorist groups.

Somebody cue up the Lee Greenwood, will ya?

:sarcasm:

Edited because I forgot the link. :hangover:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/12/AR2005061201441.html

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. I just read that article

Frankly, it reminded me of when the Southern Poverty Law Center caught on to what I'd been espousing for years, and sued the members of The Order, or whatever the Idaho Nazi group was called. Cleaned them out financially, put them out of business, took their property, blew up the buildings, and built something good there.

Reading the article, I didn't have a whole lot of sympathy for the woman who claimed citizenship, knowing full well she wasn't a citizen, and who also lied about her employment. No, that's what laws are for, and if people choose to lie, they're voluntarily taking that risk.

The George Mason professor who claimed the checks were reimbursement for expenses, but who never could offer any proof of that, also didn't arouse any outrage in me.

It's a case of using the laws that are on the books, using them legitimately and properly.

Then, of course, there is the Patriot Act .... sigh...........

[MountainLaurel]

3. I just have no faith

That the government is going to do the right thing and not abuse its privileges.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. Oh, of course

That's a given. If you believe or trust the government, you're sure to get your head handed to you.

I just think that article was the Post bending over a little too far backwards to try to make up for their asskissing of the current squatters in the White House, and, as usual, they did it badly.

For instance, they really should have stressed how the same laws are NOT being applied to people from other countries who have pulled the same tricks - let's say, the Far East or Mexico or Central America or Eastern Europe.

[primavera]

6. Also a case of having decent laws

Obeying the law is all well and good, but, as always, there's a flip side to the argument: what if the law is unrealistic? We've got US companies hiring alien smugglers to bring illegal workers into the country because they have all of these jobs they want filled, yet the annual quota on how many work visas the government can issue is scarcely a tenth of the demand. We tell immigrants that they have the right to join with their families, but they'll have to wait ten years for a visa because, again, Congress only allocates a tiny number of visas each year to family reunification categories. Would you wait ten years? Okay, no argument, it's still the law and you should wait the ten years and comply with the law, but I think the inadequacy of the law to realistically address the need provides, shall we say, an extenuating or mitigating circumstance to those who violate it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

7. Absolutely

There are always breaks in laws, and there are always those who will exploit them.

Legislative drafting is probably the most exacting form of the art of compromise I've ever witnessed. I could never be good at it. An incredible area of expertise.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Helicopters, masked men, guns, to arrest an immigrant?

Even the Germans didn't need helicopters to round up the Jews. What a dangerous guy. He lied on his immigration documents!!

Let's see. Guantanamo. Abu Ghraib. Torture. Persecution of immigrants. Midnight knocks on the door. "Show us your documents".

Didn't they make movies about this back in the '40s?

[primavera]

5. Completely predictable

Immigration law is a great loophole from the enforcement point of view, as the constitutional rights of noncitizens are more open to interpretation and you can tap into the public's resentment of illegal immigration to get laws passed that allow for dispensing summary "justice" to immigrants. Who cares about them anyway? They steal jobs from American workers and run up huge social services bills, right? Well, no, actually that's totally wrong, but a lot of people perceive it that way, so they'll go along with laws which strip immigrants of due process rights. Then, what do you know, surprise, surprise, enforcement agencies use those provisions to snag anyone they don't happen to like for whatever legitimate or illegitimate reason. Gotta sleep in the bed you make, you know...