You are here:About>News & Issues>Immigration Issues
Born AbroadImmigration Issues
The New World Order

Part II: Is a new asylum rule undermining USA's role as a country of immigration?

 Join the Discussion
LIFE Act Question
TONKU
 
  Related Resources
Daily Immi News
• Dual Citizenship
• Special Registration
• Established in US
 
 From Other Guides
U.S. Government Info
Civil Liberties Site
Race Relations Site
 Elsewhere on the Web
Concurrent Filing FAQ
Visalaw: New INS rule
 

No matter how much security is increased in the US, it is impossible to control and protect every corner, the country is simply too big. It is questionable if detaining every asylum seeker from a country linked to Al-Qaeda is helping in "weeding out" potential terrorists or "evildoers." It certainly makes the immigration process more complicated, more work-intense and probably more expensive. As has been the case so many times in the past, UN officials aren't happy with this new preventive policy. In a letter to American authorities, Ruud Lubbers, the United Nations' high commissioner for refugees, stated in a recent letter to American authorities that "The tendency to link asylum seekers and refugees to terrorism is a dangerous and erroneous one." This statement is in line with the United Nations' opinion that arbitrary detention of refugees is wrong. Call me naive, but I still believe that the majority of asylum seekers or immigrants in general, come to this country in order to create a better life by working hard and playing by the rules. Often times, it is these people who get caught in the net of bureaucracy, finding themselves detained and deported, as might be the case with an Iraqi woman who recently, on the eve of the war on Iraq, spoke on radio and TV about her experiences in Iraq under Saddam's regime. (See article) One week after meeting with President Bush, who used her as an example of how chemical weapons were used by Saddam against his people, the Iraqi woman gets a letter by the INS, telling her to report to a deportation officer. It goes to show how disconnected the agencies are among each other, and that bureaucracy rules over common sense. We can only hope that cases like this are the exception, but recalling news and reports from the past, I'm afraid it happens quite often.

While heightened security is a necessary measure that might make potential attackers think twice, it is also a psychological one that makes us feel safer. The downside to declaring certain groups of people dangerous, is the suspicions that are raised among citizens toward these immigrants, creating an atmosphere of fear or at least mistrust and uneasiness. This is part of a prediction that many Americans expressed after 9/11, that "Life in America will never be the same."

Interestingly enough, it seems that the big refugee wave from Iraq has failed to appear so far, for different reasons, some of them as simple as the lack of means to travel outside the country, and probably also the lack of willingness to leave the country, or in other words: many Iraqis don't have the desire to leave their homeland. Hopefully, with Saddam's regime gone and the Americans, British and the UN helping them to install a new government, leaving their homeland won't be necessary for the Iraqis, the best of all solutions.

How does this new asylum policy and any other new immigration policies that we will see in the future, fit into  the New World Order? Talking about it means explaining the term, and there lies a problem already. What is the New World Order? It's a catchphrase that means nothing to many people, but everything to others. If we understand the New World Order as a plan where the United States decide which countries on this planet are going to be invaded, liberated, democratized and made global economic players, then we can expect more profiling in immigration laws and policies. The term has already been used by Bush Senior 12 years ago, when he was talking about the end of the "bipolar system" or the cold war, with the hope of a "rise of a more harmonious international community." In this system, the UN would play a central role, a "model for how to conduct international politics." We know that this hasn't happened, and it is questionable, what role the UN will play in the future opposite the United States. In this context, one wonders if the various UN refugee programs will be affected by US politics and if we will see an even tougher immigration policy in the United States. In the best of all worlds, the United States with the help of the international community succeeds in installing democracy, freedom and a flourishing economy in the countries they have invaded or that are on Washington's list, keeping the people in their homeland, making the American dream their own dream.

Peter

Articles Archive

Back to the front page

 

home_chicklet1.gif (311 bytes) Grab an immigration chat buddy!

home_chicklet1.gif (311 bytes)  See What's Going on in Our Help/Support Forum:

home_chicklet1.gif (311 bytes)  See What's Going on in Our News/Debate Forum:

Subscribe to the Newsletter
Name
Email

 

© Peter and Jennifer Wipf 1999-2003.  All rights reserved. No duplication without explicit written permission.

From Jennifer Leavitt-Wipf,
Your Guide to Immigration Issues.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
 All Topics | Email Article | Print this Page | |
Advertising Info | News & Events | Work at About | SiteMap | Reprints | HelpOur Story | Be a Guide
Calorie-Count | UCompareHealthCare
User Agreement | Ethics Policy | Patent Info. | Privacy Policy
©2008 Born Abroad Foundation. All rights reserved.