Advertisement

The Peter Principles: Registration follies

By PETER ROFF, United Press International

WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- The Bush administration's efforts to prevent another terrorist attack from occurring on U.S. soil have been criticized almost since their inception. This is understandable, as the Justice Department asked Congress to approve dramatically expanded federal police powers as part of the newly declared war on terror.

That many legislators questioned the proposal is to their credit. In the past, Congress has been all too willing to approve White House initiatives to root out potential subversives in the name of national security.

Advertisement

This was not the first time the government has proposed actions that threatened civil liberties in the name of security. In 1861 Abraham Lincoln suspended writs of habeas corpus, an act affirmed by Congress.

Out of fears that communist infiltrators were subverting American institutions, the Wilson administration initiated the infamous Palmer Raids in 1919. The raids were part of a campaign to root out and deport political radicals and immigrants.

Advertisement

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued an executive order two months after Pearl Harbor that resulted in the forced relocation and incarceration of more than 100,000 people of Japanese ancestry living on the West Coast. History records that Congress failed to dissent as this effort was implemented.

These examples evoke striking parallels to some of the administration's initial proposals. The current White House has been more open to discussion on these points than Lincoln, Wilson and FDR likely were, but vigilance is still required.

In the past 30 years, the civil liberties v. national security debate has hewed heavily toward liberties. In the eyes of many, commonsense proposals seem like dangerous overreaching -- while to some these complaints ring hollow. If this administration has overreached, it can be forgiven provided the proper steps to rectify the situation are taken.

Many Muslim-Americans and Muslims living in America believe they were singled out for retribution after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. The evidence is out on the broad question, but, when it comes to the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, they may have a point.

In the USA Patriot Act, Congress required the Justice Department to institute better ways of tracking who enters the United States, when they leave and what they did while in the country. NSEERS is part of that effort.

Advertisement

The NSEERS requirements, according to Attorney General John Ashcroft, "apply to non-immigrant adult aliens from five state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria." Aliens from other countries warranting what the department calls "extra scrutiny when they visit the United States" are also subject to these requirements.

On paper this sounds like a good idea. In practice it only increases the climate of suspicion under which many Muslims in America must live daily.

Immigrants from 24 predominantly Muslim countries have been ordered to re-register with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service as part of NSEERS; anyone who complies and is found to have major or minor visa violations will be deemed out of status, likely detained and deported.

Aside from creating a disincentive to re-register, the program's implementation has created suspicion. Eric Erfan Vickers, the executive director of the American Muslim Council, calls the whole matter a "shameful episode in our nation's history."

Like it or not, the fact that the INS has issued a special call for immigrants from these countries insinuates they are being singled out for scrutiny.

Knowing that, why would a terrorist who has already slipped through the cracks bother to comply? The risks of immediate arrest and detention are high while the risks of remaining hidden are minimal until caught.

Advertisement

The U.S. Senate has included a rider in the spending legislation currently under consideration that would prevent the Department of Justice from continuing the NSEERS program as it is currently constituted. Hopefully, this effort will succeed.

The better play, one we can all hope the INS pursues if forced to reconstitute the program, would be to begin with an amnesty period. Some conservatives will oppose this, as they do anything that hints at amnesty for illegal immigrants, but it is the smart way to go -- if the real effort is to root out terrorists who came to America under false pretenses.

An offer of amnesty for all minor and even some major infractions encourages people to re-register to establish a clean slate. It encourages rather than discourages participation in the effort to find out just who is in America.

Most lawful immigrants would comply if for no other reasons that to prove they are law-abiding guests. Meanwhile the INS can make clear that anyone who fails to re-register during the amnesty risks stiffer penalties under a presumption that something more serious than a minor infraction of U.S. immigration law kept a specific individual from coming in.

As an additional incentive, the INS could announce that anyone aiding in the effort of another to remain unregistered after the amnesty is subject to possible detention, prosecution and deportation.

Advertisement

Keeping Americans and those living in America safe is a big job. The government will find it has an easier go of it if they can make everyone a partner rather than an opponent.


The Peter principles is a twice-weekly column on issues in politics, culture and the media by UPI political writer Peter Roff.

Latest Headlines