Immigration hurdles remain for Muslims and Arabs
Thursday, July 5, 2007

By AREF ASSAF
Bergen Record

AS THE HEATED DEBATE on the issue of illegal immigration intensifies, many still face obstacles in their quest to legally become American citizens. Exorbitant filing fees coupled with years of delays and bureaucratic entanglements at immigration and consular offices have led some to choose illegal means of entry.
Often illegal immigration is enveloped in violations of U.S. law and abuses of generous medical and housing assistance. However, legal immigration to the United States is unduly overburdened by security concerns over the ethnicity and religious beliefs of those wishing to immigrate.
We laud the efforts of Sen. Robert Menendez, who introduced an amendment, ultimately defeated, to the recent immigration bill to prioritize the issuance of visas favoring those who are here legally and want to become U.S. citizens.
"You are a U.S. citizen and have paid your taxes, served your nation, attend your church, and make a good living," Menendez said. "You have petitioned to have your adult child come to America, but did so after the arbitrary date of May 1, 2005. Under this bill, the U.S. citizen would lose that right. However, those who are undocumented in the country after that May 1, 2005, date actually get a benefit."
Various studies and reports by Arab and Muslim American groups have argued that the government is illegally delaying the naturalization applications of immigrants by profiling individuals it perceives to be Muslim and subjecting them to an indefinite series of security checks. These reports sternly accuse the U.S. government of turning immigration institutions into security stations that penalize individuals because of their religion and national origin.
Undoubtedly, our country is facing serious immigration issues relating to illegal immigrants, but the plight of Muslims and Arabs has to do with legal immigration procedures and requirements. Since 2001, immigration law has increasingly been used to target our community.
In 2002, the government instituted the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, which required non-citizen males from mostly Muslim and Arab countries that were designated as threats to national security to formally register with the government. Strikingly, but not unexpectedly, not one of the 93,000 men "specially registered" was charged with a terrorism-related offense; instead, the consequences of special registration were mass deportations and detention for minor or technical immigration violations.
A typical case
Take the case of "Ahmad," a 40- year-old software engineer with a thriving software company and with no criminal record. He, like thousands of immigrants, had chosen the United States as his new home: He abides by our laws, pays taxes and contributes to our nation's economy and strengthens its multicultural foundations. Ahmad has also passed every test and fulfilled every requirement related to the naturalization process, but he continues to wait for security clearance on his application. The only update on his four-year-long application is a demand for updated fingerprints.
Delays and outright denials have subsequently encouraged some Arabs and Muslims to illegally enter the United States through the Mexican border or deliberately obtain a tourist visa with the full intention of never leaving the country.
The delays have also created the cumulative effect of taxation without representation, disenfranchising a large segment of our community by preventing them from exercising their right to vote, and more seriously, giving credence to the perception of being unwelcome in their adopted country.
Fuller assimilation in the larger American society is thwarted as many in our community choose to cocoon themselves inside their geographic and ethnic enclaves.
It cannot be proven that these policies are intentionally discriminatory. But it is our contention that prolonged security checks in the naturalization process have the effect of unfairly burdening our community. Such policies, and their subsequent effects, are illegal under international and existing U.S. laws.
Profiling, whether based on race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin is not only illegal and unconstitutional, but has been proven to be an unreliable substitute for credible intelligence-gathering techniques to identify potential threats. It does not render our country safer.
Profiling fosters suspicion and insecurity and, if not curbed, will institutionalize discriminatory and prejudicial acts and attitudes.
Aref Assaf is president of the American Arab Forum, based in Paterson.
 

Print | Close