|
Al-Hewar Center – Sept. 20, 1999
The state of civil rights of the Arab and Muslim American communities in pre-9/11 era
On September 20, 1999, Al-Hewar Center hosted attorney Houeida Saad, gave the following presentation on "The State of Civil Rights of the Arab and Muslim American Communities."
I. Introduction
The Arab American and Muslim American communities have numerous organizations that represent their interest and do so successfully. However, no organization exists to strictly defend the legal interest of the community. By defending "legal interest," I mean more than advocacy. It means in civil cases, individuals should be suing for damages where individuals have been harassed, defamed, attacked and especially if they have criminally prosecuted the individual and succeeded. In employment discrimination, individuals have the right to challenge discriminatory hiring practices based on constitutionally protected criteria: discrimination based on gender, age, race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. Individuals who suffer discrimination in housing have the right of redress under civil rights laws. In criminal matters, it means assuring that the accused has a fair trial, that language barriers in the courts are handled sensitively and accurately (most courts in major large cities do not have Arabic interpreters who are Arab American and have a command of the classical and local dialect), and most importantly have competent legal representation that understands political cases when they arise. Therefore, many cases go unprosecuted by plaintiffs who would otherwise succeed if they could afford representation. In many circumstances, individuals who can afford counsel are either taken advantage of when they hire attorneys or hire attorneys who do not understand that a case of an individual who is of Arab or Muslim background is unique and should be approached with caution.
The most common legal problems that occur in the community across the country cover all areas of the law but primarily are in employment discrimination, civil rights, and immigration. I will provide a short synopsis of the problem areas and suggestions for remedying them.
II. Immigration
Immigration law is an ongoing legal need in many new immigrant communities and the Arab and Muslim American community is no different. Many excellent attorneys are available to answer the legal questions surrounding immigration law. However, the specific deficit manifests itself when individuals, such as a Palestinian, seek the advice of counsel for numerous legal issues. Because Palestinians are Stateless, they have no country to return to, their birth country does not provide them citizenship. Under the Oslo Accord, Jordan agreed to receive Stateless Palestinians, but economically this is a burden for Jordan that neither the Jordanians nor the international community has resolved. Officials in the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) do not always have an understanding of the legal status of a Stateless person and will not always rely on the advice of a handful of practitioners who have the majority of experience in this area.
Following the World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) on April 24, 1996, which signaled a new phase in the government’s attack on the Arab community in this country. The purpose of the Act was to curtail terrorist activities at home. However, its impact adversely affects the Arab and Muslim communities, as well as Americans who have an interest in our foreign policy in the Middle East. In addition, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) amended provisions of AEDPA and enacted in September 1996. Specifically, the new laws allow the following (not an exclusive list):
(1) Criminalizes International Fundraising and Humanitarian Aid. AEDPA makes it a crime to knowingly raise and contribute funds, donate educational and humanitarian aid, or to provide lodging, transportation or other forms of aid which is termed "material support," except medicines and religious materials, to groups the government has listed as "terrorist organizations." The Secretary of State issued the list which applies to the application of AEDPA (17 out of 30 listed groups are Arab or Muslim). This means that the Secretary of State certified that these groups are "national security risks" against the national defense, foreign relations or economic interests of the United States. Such activity includes, hostage taking, use of explosives "with intent to endanger directly or indirectly the safety of one or more individuals" or cause "substantial damage to property." This includes, threats, attempts and conspiracies are covered in the definition of an "act." The majority of the 30 designated organizations are Arab or Muslim. 1
The government now has tremendous discretion to determine, depending on its changing foreign policy needs, which political groups are legitimate and which are not. Funds donated to the IRA political prisoners or sending money for supplies to medical clinics and schools in the Palestinian Authority, Jerusalem, or Lebanon is included. If some one is charged under AEDPA, their attorney must request permission from the Department of Treasury to accept money for the representation of the client.
(1) Banks Must Freeze Assets. The Secretary of the Treasury will direct U.S. Banks and other financial institutions to freeze the assets of these designated groups. Under the threat of fines, the law directs banks to freeze the assets of groups and individuals, including U.S. citizens and domestic groups, that the banks believe are "agents" of designated foreign groups. "Agent" is not defined and the challenge to the freezing must go directly to federal court.
(2) Criminalizes Financial Transactions with "Terrorist States." Countries listed on the Secretary of State’s list of terrorist states are forbidden from transacting with U.S. citizens (or aliens) and it is punishable up to ten years in prison to engage in a financial transaction with a country on the list (Sudan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea). Individuals who want to work in a humanitarian capacity in any of these countries, must apply for a license from the Department of Treasury to do so. If a group does not do so, any monies going to that group are illegal.
Immigrants Are Specifically Targeted For Their Political Opinions
(3) Deportation Without Due Process. In deportation proceedings, the INS can use "secret evidence" to deport an individual deemed a "national security" risk without his or her attorney being able to review the evidence. The defense of these deportation cases is difficult and time-consuming. Many of these appeals bring issues to the federal courts for the first time. Current law on the use of secret evidence in deportation proceedings is not firmly settled.2 However, the INS must provide a "classified summary." It was only with the passage of the AEDPA with its sanction of secret evidence in the "special removal courts" that the INS began to use secret evidence against Arabs on such a large scale. Examples of such cases follows3:
Ali Termos
Mr. Termos was deported from the United States on October 6, 1997, after serving one year in jail in Michigan in INS custody after he was denied bond. Mr. Termos entered the United States on a student exchange visa and stopped attending school several years after his arrival causing his visa to expire. However, the INS made no move to ask him to leave the country. He married on June 25, 1996, to a naturalized U.S. citizen, and began the process of obtaining lawful permanent resident status by securing from the Lebanese government a "no objection" letter to his remaining in the U S.4 He was later arrested at his place of employment and charged with overstaying his student visa and working without authorization.
It is at this point that Mr. Termos’s treatment became different from the countless other individuals in the U.S. who have overstayed visas. In virtually every case where there is a U.S. citizen spouse, the INS allows the individual to remain in the country while processing the application for lawful resident status, occasionally requiring the payment of a small bond. But in Mr. Termos’s case, the INS opposed his request for release, and his request that a bond be set. Instead, the INS held him for questioning by an FBI agent. The agent questioned Mr. Termos for two hours about his knowledge of the various Islamic religious institutions in the metropolitan Detroit area, and any possible connection between these groups and "terrorist" organizations such as Hezbollah. During this questioning, Mr. Termos acknowledged that he sent a nominal sum each year to the "Martyrs Foundation" in Lebanon for support of a relative whose father had been killed in an Israeli raid on South Lebanon. He also acknowledged that he had been publicly outspoken against Israel’s military occupation of southern Lebanon.
After his questioning by the FBI, Mr. Termos was told that he was being held without bond. He secured an attorney, who requested that an immigration judge review this decision. At the subsequent bond hearing, held one week later, an FBI agent appeared along with the INS prosecutor. This agent presented "confidential information" to the judge to support the government’s charge that Mr. Termos was a "security risk" and should be denied bond. The judge admitted this secret evidence, denied Mr. Termos and his attorney any type of summary, and denied his request that he be released on bond.
Subsequent to the bond hearing, a deportation hearing was held. The INS prosecutor acknowledged that Mr. Termos had not committed any crime, that his wife was a U.S. citizen, and that Lebanon had issued the required "no objection" letter. Nonetheless, the immigration judge ordered that Mr. Termos had to leave the country. His attorney filed an appeal. Mr. Termos remained in INS custody during the appeal process. When the appeal was denied, he was deported to Lebanon.
Yahia Meddah
Mr. Meddah’s case is noteworthy both for the seeming arbitrary nature of his detention he is fleeing persecution by a group the U.S. government has designated as "terrorist" and for the brutality of his detention. A native of Algeria fearing persecution from the Armed Islamic Group ("GIA"), he was been denied bond and denied political asylum on the basis of secret evidence. He remains in INS custody pending appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal court.
Twenty-six year-old Yahia Meddah came to the United States in 1993 after many of his family members had been killed by the GIA, a group which is on the government’s list of terrorist organizations. He settled in West Virginia and married a U.S. citizen. It was only after an altercation with his wife’s daughter and her boyfriend that Mr. Meddah came to the INS’s attention. Then, when hospitalized in August 1996 due to an assault by the boyfriend, Mr. Meddah was detained by INS agents and then turned over to their custody, where he remains almost two years later. The INS first held him at a local West Virginia jail, where he was questioned by an FBI agent who denied him legal representation during the interview. Mr. Meddah was then transferred to the York County Prison in York, Pennsylvania, where he was held in solitary confinement until mid-October of 1996.
Unable at first to secure counsel, Mr. Meddah represented himself at a bond hearing in November 1996. The judge denied bond, based on an INS claim that he had caused an altercation in the prison where he was being held. Mr. Meddah then secured counsel, who requested another bond hearing, and filed an application for political asylum. The renewed bond requested was denied in August 1997.
At a hearing in September 1997, the immigration judge allowed the government to present secret evidence that Mr. Meddah was affiliated with "terrorist organizations." The judge considered the evidence without disclosing it to Mr. Meddah’s attorney, and then denied the application for political asylum, finding both that Mr. Meddah did not qualify for political asylum, and that even if he had so qualified, he was not eligible for that benefit because of his association with "terrorist organizations." The appeal filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals is still pending.
Meanwhile, Mr. Meddah has suffered tremendously in INS detention. He has attempted suicide and suffered from psychiatric episodes. In addition to holding him in solitary confinement, the INS has denied him medical and psychiatric treatment. He has been transferred on numerous occasions away from his attorneys. He is currently held in Krome detention center in Miami.
Nasser Ahmed
Nasser Ahmed is a 37 year-old Egyptian who has been held by the INS in a New York jail since April 1996. His case is noteworthy because it appears that the INS action against him is in direct retaliation for his having worked as a court appointed translator in the case of the World Trade Center bombing (Sheikh Abdul Rahman) in 1994 and 1995. Sometime after his arrival in the U.S. in 1986, Mr. Ahmed’s mosque, Masjid Abu Bakr, was investigated by the FBI, apparently because of its political opposition to the Egyptian government. The FBI found no criminal activity at the mosque. He was arrested and released on $15,000 bond.
However, INS arrested Mr. Ahmed again in April 1996, after the trial’s completion. He applied both for bond and political asylum. The INS prosecutor introduced secret evidence that allegedly showed that Mr. Ahmed was associated with a "terrorist organization". The judge then ordered the INS to provide an unclassified summary. The government complied with this request, but the judge characterized it as "largely useless." However, even as he expressed reservations about utilizing secret evidence, the judge found that secret evidence compelled him to deny the request for political asylum. Mr. Ahmed remains detained as his attorneys are asking a federal court to review his case. He has been detained for over two years.
Imad Hamad
Imad Hamad’s is the only case to date where the immigration judge granted his application for lawful status, over government objections. The INS has appealed, however, so the judge’s decision is not final. His case is interesting because his alleged "terrorist activity" occurred some 15 year ago, and because he was never detained by the INS.
Mr. Hamad, a Palestinian, entered the United States as a student in 1980. It was while he was attending school in California that he allegedly attended some rallies and otherwise supported some humanitarian activities of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. He was placed in deportation proceedings when the INS denied an application for adjustment to permanent residence after his first marriage fell apart. As deportation proceedings dragged on, Mr. Hamad moved to Detroit, where he met and subsequently married his current wife. When a deportation hearing was finally scheduled, an immigration judge dismissed the government’s allegations that Mr. Hamad had engaged in terrorist activity, stating that the INS had not proved those alleged actions ever took place. Ultimately, the judge granted Mr. Hamad adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident based on his second marriage.5 The INS has appealed this decision, as well as the judge’s refusal to consider their claims that Mr. Hamad had been involved with the PFLP.
Dr. Mazen Al-Najjar
Dr. Al-Najjar is a Palestinian who came to the United States in 1981 to pursue his graduate education. He was arrested by the INS and remains detained more than a year later. Citing security concerns and relying on secret evidence, an immigration judge denied Dr. Al-Najjar’s request for release on bond. Another judge later denied his application for political asylum.
Dr. Al-Najjar was arrested in May 1997 after an FBI investigation of the World and Islam Studies Enterprise, WISE, a think tank founded by Dr. Al-Najjar and his brother-in-law. The FBI claimed that WISE was actually a front for Palestinian "terrorists," and then charged Dr. Al-Najjar with being a "mid-level operative" allegedly sending money to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The INS took Dr. Al-Najjar into custody, and denied him release on bond. He asked an immigration judge to review that decision. The INS prosecutor alleged that Dr. Al-Najjar was a threat to national security, and asked the judge to review classified evidence which they said supported their claim. The judge released an unclassified summary which stated only that Dr. Al-Najjar was "associated" "with a terrorist organization known as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad." The judge denied release on bond, despite Dr. Al-Najjar’s having no criminal record and having lived peacefully in the same community for more than ten years.
Dr. Al-Najjar then requested political asylum. He and his wife are both stateless Palestinians not holding citizenship in any country. The immigration judge found that they did not quality for political asylum because they did not show a threat of persecution, the burden required for political asylum. The judge ordered Dr. Al-Najjar’s family to be separated, with him deported to the United Arab Emirates, and his wife to Saudi Arabia, even though neither country has agreed to accept them.
Dr. Al-Najjar filed an appeal of the judge’s decisions. Meanwhile, he remains detained in INS custody.
Dr. Anwar Haddam
Dr. Haddam’s case is especially disturbing of all the secret evidence cases because the immigration judge did not admit written documentary evidence and did not review the tape of Dr. Haddam’s statements –both of which could be reviewed by an appellate court –but instead allowed an FBI agent to come into his private chambers, alone, and state off the record why he believed Dr. Haddam posed a security risk. Dr. Haddam has been in INS custody since early 1997. The government allegedly taped Dr. Haddam, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and claimed they had culpable evidence proving his terrorist ties.
Dr. Haddam is an Algerian who had been working on Algerian issues in Washington DC beginning in 1992. He has lived in the U.S. for a number of years and has three U.S. citizen children. He had been given parole status by the INS allowing him to live in the U.S. and re-enter after travel abroad. The INS arrested him in December 1996 and have pushed for his deportation to Algeria.
Dr. Haddam’s attorneys objected to the use of this classified evidence. The immigration judge said he was going to accept the evidence in summary form. The immigration judge allowed an FBI agent to simply tell him what Dr. Haddam had allegedly said on the tapes. Dr. Haddam’s attorneys believed if the judge actually listened to the tapes, this would exonerate their client. The judge refused and instead allowed the FBI agent to give him the informal summary in private, without Dr. Haddam’s counsel being present and without giving them an opportunity to respond to the FBI agent’s charges. The judge refused the attorney’s request to swear in the FBI agent prior to the agent going into the judge’s chambers to testify.
Hany Kiareldeen
Mr. Kiareldeen is an electronics store sales manager in New Jersey. He was born in the Gaza Strip, and has lived in the U.S. since 1990. In March of 1998, the INS arrested him, and has held him ever since. He was denied bond on the basis of secret evidence. The summary of the evidence provided to him alleged that he is a member of an unnamed terrorist organization, and has relations with suspected terrorists, also unnamed. He has not been charged with any criminal, much less terrorist, conduct.
Six Iraqi Men
Six Iraqi men are in a Los Angeles prison, being held by the INS. Ironically, it was the U.S. government who brought these six to the United States for resisting the current Iraqi regime. Once they arrived, the six applied for political asylum, which was denied, based on the testimony of secret witnesses. Allegedly, the six were denied asylum because they present a "security risk’ to the United States. Because they don’t know what the basis for this conclusion is, they are not able to answer it. As organizers of a plot against the current Iraqi government, they believe they face certain death if returned to Iraq. Their attorneys have filed an appeal to the CIA. The former director of the Central Intelligence Agency James Woolsey is one of their attorneys, and interestingly enough he too is not allowed to review the secret evidence against his clients.
Use of Grand Juries:
Dr. Abdelhaleem Ashqar
Dr. Ashqar was called before a grand jury in New York and refused to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds. His attorneys believed that the grand jury was seeking information on "money laundering". The government granted Dr. Ashqar immunity from prosecution but he still refused to testify. The prosecutor initiated civil contempt charges against him, Dr. Ashqar explained to a federal judge that he would rather die than betray his beliefs and commitments to the Palestinian liberation movement. On February 23, 1998, the judge held him in civil contempt and ordered his confinement in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, where he remained until a few weeks ago. Dr. Ashqar began a hunger strike, and his health deteriorated markedly. His attorneys filed a motion to release him from confinement, citing among his First Amendment right not to be intimidated in his political associations and his fragile health.
Ismail Elbarasse
Another witness called before the New York grand jury, Ismael Elbarasse, has likewise refused to testify and has also been jailed on civil contempt charges. Mr. Elbarasse is a 51 year-old Palestinian American, a father of six, who has his home in Falls Church, Virginia. He was called before the New York grand jury in March 1998. In a poignant statement read to the grand jury on April 6, 1998, Mr. Elbarasse explained that his religious and personal convictions prevented him from participating in an unethical "investigation" seeking only to harass and persecute Muslims and Arabs. Mr. Elbarasse remains imprisoned for his refusal to testify.
Florida Grand Jury
A grand jury sitting in Tampa, Florida appears to be investigating WISE, the think tank and charity run by Dr. Mazen Al-Najjar before his detention by the INS. Dr. Al-Najjar’s brother-in-law Sami Al-Arian, a founder of WISE, is believed to be one of the targets of the grand jury’s investigation. Mr. Al-Arian was placed on administrative leave by his employer, a Tampa-area university, after someone from the U.S. Attorney’s office informed the university that he was a target of their investigation. One of the witnesses called before the Grand Jury is a Chicago resident who had attended a fundraiser that WISE had helped to organize in Chicago in 1991. The witness’s attorney believes that a videotape of that event may have fallen into prosecutor’s hands, and they then identified several of the people who had attended the rally. The witness refused to testify on First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds. Unlike the New York prosecutors, however, the Florida prosecutors did not jail the witness for civil contempt. And, recently prosecutors informed Mr. Al-Arian’s employer that he is no longer the target of the investigation, and he has returned to work. However, the grand jury has nonetheless taken its toll on the community, and the fight to release Dr. Al-Najjar from INS detention continues.
(4) Formation of Special Courts. Based on the government’s assertion that the immigrant engaged in terrorist activity. Special courts can be created which are called "terrorist removal courts" for immigrant political activists accused of "terrorist activity." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, will select five judges to run this court. Also, judges can be selected from courts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA court). The FISA Court is allowed by law to operate in secret and reviews FBI and National Security Agency requests for wiretaps and other forms of electronic surveillance. The terrorist removal courts would apply to permanent resident aliens and AEDPA allows the use of secret evidence in the proceedings against the alien. The FISA Court applies to any U.S. citizen engaged in illegal and/or unlawful activity which the government deems a "national security" issue.
(5) Expanding FBI Surveillance. AEDPA and I have given the FBI tremendous expanded power to monitor immigrant communities and political groups for lawful activity that may be disfavored by the government.
(6) Criminal Aliens Will Be Deported. Individuals who have certain misdemeanors and certain felonies on their record, at any time in the past, will be deported. Immigrants who arrive at the border seeking asylum will now be held in custody and could be returned at the border without the right to see an immigration judge. Federal Courts have been stripped of their power to review illegal actions and abuse of discretion by the INS.
(7) Examples Of Expanded Surveillance.
Salah Case
June 10, 1998, federal prosecutors and FBI agents in Chicago seized $1.4 million worth of assets of Mohammad Salah and the Quranic Literacy Institute, a Chicago-area group that translates Islamic texts. The assets seized include the house where Mohammad lives with his wife and family and the bank accounts of the Quranic Literacy Institute. The government claims that the assets were part of a money laundering operation funneling money to a "foreign terrorist organization". Mr. Salah and his attorney are fighting the charges and will try to have the assets returned.
Interesting, it is not the AEDPA but rather the government is using the civil forfeiture law against Mr. Salah and the QLI. This law lets the government seize any assets which are the fruit of a criminal activity, or part of a criminal transaction. In Mr. Salah’s and the QLI’s case, the government is alleging that the assets are part of a scheme to fund armed attacks against Israel, thereby violating criminal money laundering statutes.
Until now, civil forfeiture has never been applied to a group involved in funding political activities abroad. It has been used quite frequently in cases involving illegal drug activity and racketeering. Because the forfeiture is technically against the assets, not the person, it is considered civil, not criminal. This is the government justification for turning the presumption of "innocence until proven guilty" on its head. In civil forfeiture, the government confiscates the assets, and the burden is then on the owner to prove that the assets were not part of any illegal activities. This upside-down notion of justice has been criticized by almost everyone who has been involved in the process. Recently, in an editorial on June 19, 1998, the Chicago Tribune criticized the seizure of Mr. Salah’s and the QLI’s assets as part of a "through-the-looking-glass scenario" that is "not the American way of justice."
Even more disturbing is that the case against Mr. Salah and the QLI is built almost entirely on a "confession" that Mr. Salah allegedly made while imprisoned by the Israeli authorities – a confession that even the Chicago Tribune recognizes was "without benefit of even the pretense of due process." During the course of this "confession," Mr. Salah was tortured by Israeli authorities.
III. Civil Rights Laws
Clearly, the government intends to cause much pain and suffering on the community’s ability and desire to send donations abroad. Those who send money abroad for lawful means: helping their families improve on their style of living, for mere food and shelter, education, medical services, and building on land already owned have found themselves investigated, audited, monitored, and in some instances prosecuted. It is imperative that individuals know federal laws that they can rely on to protect their civil rights, if they are infringed upon by private or state actors. Federal civil rights laws were enacted after the civil war to protect freed slaves during reconstruction. These laws were later reinforced in the 1960’s during the civil rights era, and again in 1990’s. For example:
(1) Everyone has the right, equal rights under the law, to enter into a contract. For example, if an insurance company denies you the ability to purchase an insurance policy based on your race, national origin, religion or because you are not a U.S. citizen, is illegal. This is otherwise known as section 1981. Only one case has gone to the Supreme Court on this issue – a U.S. citizen of Iraqi origin sued St. Francis College for denying him tenure alleging racism based on his national origin and violation of section 1981. At first the District Court held that the law did not apply to him because section 1981 did not cover Arabs – the case went to the Supreme Court which held that it did.
(2) Everyone has the right to equal property rights. This includes the ability to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. This is otherwise known as section 1982. This includes the ability to procure a bank loan under the same terms as any other individual in your circumstance.
(3) Individuals have the right to bring forth a claim against anyone who deprives them of their rights secured under the federal Constitution laws. This means that you can have an action against the state for false arrest. This is known as section 1983. For example, Rodney King had a section 1983 complaint against the officers who beat him.
(4) Individuals are liable to you if they conspire to interfere with your civil rights. This is otherwise known as section 1985. African Americans have used this statute to protect their interest from those interfering with their right to vote.
(5) Under section 1988, individuals have the right to reasonable attorney fees as part of the costs of enforcing their rights or provisions of sections 1981, 1982,1983, 1985.
IV. Criminal Law
The need to understand your rights under the Constitution, federal and state law becomes more imperative in the area of criminal law. Most importantly, your life and liberty are at stake. Individuals should look to seek the most competent attorneys to represent them in this area. I sincerely believe that judges and juries can be biased based on the amount of media saturation about Arab and Muslim terrorists. Judges will be reluctant to grant release on bond, and if they do, the bond may be too high for the individual to meet. In one case, a judge in Savannah, Georgia refused to release a young Palestinian man on bond saying he was "a damn Palestinian and he will flee." The man was born in Ohio and had not traveled abroad and his mother was Puerto Rican who spoke no Arabic.
The Arab-Israeli dispute will manifest itself in the Court room and prejudice the client. In one case where an individual in a criminal matter was before a judge, the judge asked him where he was from. The individual responded "Jerusalem." The judge asked "Jerusalem, where?" The individual’s lawyer interjected quickly and replied Jerusalem, Palestine according to him, but to the Israelis, it would be Jerusalem, Israel. Attorneys must be strong-minded and be willing to challenge the system as well as a prejudicial judge. Therefore, individuals should not select attorneys without consulting experienced attorneys who have tried cases involving Arabs and Muslims.
Individuals and businesses must be educated on the law. It is imperative that people respect and honor the spirit of the law. Any deviation from it may prove more troublesome than need be. Because deviations from the law may not be looked upon by law enforcement as a mere violation but will result in exceptional intrusive investigations because of the individuals’ national origin and ties abroad.
V. Conclusion
Enforcing your legal rights is one of the most precious aspects of a democracy. Our community must learn to utilize the courts to stamp out bias and hatred as well as religious intolerance. Regardless of which country is your origin and what religion you are, your experience in society and discrimination will be similar. As a community, we must educate newcomers on laws and procedures and be there to help protect the legal and constitutional interest of the majority. A denial of a legal remedy to one individual is a denial and a threat to the democratic and constitutional rights of all individuals.
FOOTNOTES:
1These groups are: Abu Nidal Organization; Abu Sayyaf Group; Armed Islamic Group (GIA); Aum Shinrikyo; Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palstine-Hawatmeh Faction; Euzkadi Ta Eskatasuna (Basque, ETA); Gama’a al-Islamiyaa; HAMAS, Harakat Ul-Ansar; Hizballah, Japanese Red Army; al-Jihad; Kach; Kahane Chai; Khmer Rouge; Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK); Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers); Manuel Rodnguez Patriotic Front Dissidents (FPMR/D); Mujahehedin-e Kahlq Organization, National Liberation Army (ELN); Palestine Islamic Jibad-Shaqaqi Faction; Palestine Liberation Front-Abu Abbas Faction; Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine; Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command; Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia; Revolutionary Organization 17 November (Epanastatiki Organosi 17); Revolutionary People’s Liberation Partyt/Front (Devrimici Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi); Revolutionary People’s Struggle (Epanastatikos Laikos Agonas); Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso); Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA).
Under AEDPA a group is allowed to challenge its designation as a "foreign terrorist organization" by filing a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and Mujahedin are currently challenging their inclusion on the Secretary’s list.
2Current law governing deportation proceedings makes a distinction between what type of evidence can be used to deport someone legally in the U.S. – such as a lawful permanent resident – and what type of evidence can be used to deny a benefit to someone unlawfully in the U.S. INS prosecutors believe current law allows them to use secret evidence in all cases of the latter type, and thus they have unleashed an onslaught of prosecutions against Arabs trying to obtain permanent resident status or political asylum.
It was precisely because current law does not allow secret evidence to be used against lawful permanent residents m deportation proceedings that Congress in the AEDPA established the "special removal courts".
3Excerpts from the following cases was first compiled for the Free Dr. Ashqar/Elbarasse Committee (FDAC).
4Because Mr. Termos initially entered on a student exchange visa, he needed a waiver of that visa’s requirement that he return to Lebanon for two years before receiving permanent resident status in the U.S.
5Mr. Hamad had actually received a final order to leave the United States, and was trying to reopen his deportation proceedings to try to obtain lawful permanent resident status. It was only after the community rallied to his support and pressured the INS District Director in Detroit that Mr. Hamad was given the time necessary to reopen the proceedings and return to the immigration judge.
Houeida Saad, is an attorney at Hermina Law Group National Coalition To Protect Political Freedom.
|
