Some
Visitors to the US Must Register, Be Fingerprinted
So-called "high risk"
immigrants will be facing new scrutiny as the Justice Department calls upon an
old law to deal with new challenges. Here's our report with commentary:
Join the
Discussion
Can President Bush's plans to
establish a federal tracking system be called big brotherish? AB-IMMIGRATION
In a move
that has already angered immigrant-advocacy, civil liberties and Arab groups,
the Justice Department has announced a new counterterrorism strategy that will
require an estimated 100,000 new visitors per year to the United States to
provide photographs, register the details of their visit and have their
fingerprints taken. A total of 35 million foreigners enter the country each year
and Congress has already established a mandatory entry-exit registration system,
but the new strategy expands an existing, rarely-used law that allows for much
greater scrutiny.
Although the government plans to keep its criteria for identifying visitors as
"high risk," many believe racial and ethnic profiling will be an
inevitable part of the equation. One thing is certain according to Attorney
General John Ashcroft, and that is that, aside from some diplomats, visitors
from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria will be subjected to new scrutiny. This
seems somewhat futile given the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists came
from countries other than these.
Scheduled for implementation this fall, the new rules will reportedly affect
fewer than 100,000 foreign nationals already in the United States on temporary
visas. Those individuals will be required to visit the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to register, get fingerprinted and photographed. They
will need to check in every 12 months for the duration of their stay here.
No country or person is totally exempt from scrutiny, but most of us know that
Muslims and those from Middle Eastern countries will be at the top of the list.
Age, gender and length of stay will likely help determine their level of risk.
Some visitors will be warned of their high-risk status before they enter the
United States, but this will not apply to everyone, especially since the risks
may not be determined until the foreigner is on our soil.
The new strategy has been coined the "National Security Entry-Exit
Registration System." It will compare visitor fingerprints with those of
known or suspected terrorists, of which the Justice Department claims to have a
"sizeable" number.
And as
Ashcroft pointed out "Fingerprints don't lie."
Open for public comment before their implementation this Autumn, one reels to
think of the objections that are sure to follow, as well as all the contentions
that the plan could still be full of holes.
While some Congressmen support the program, others worry about backlash from
profiling.
The House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin,
feels that the new rules are "a reasonable first step in regaining control
over illegal immigration in the United States, which is currently out of
control." He did promise to use the keenest oversight to make sure there
are no abuses taking place.
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee
doesn't care about oversight though. He accused the law of being
"Orwellian" in reference to the novel 1984, in which "Big
Brother" watched every person's every move.
Sen. Edward Kennedy mirrored those concerns, saying that the US government will
have carte blanche to further stigmatize innocent Arab and Muslim visitors.
Those foreign visitors who are singled out for registration and fail to comply
are to be arrested by state and local officials. After much criticism and
objection to the idea of local law enforcement getting involved in immigration
enforcement, Ashcroft promised that their role would be limited to arresting the
absconders of this rule alone, or those accused of criminal activity, of course.
No matter which side you're on in this debate, it comes to down to a simple
matter of freedom vs. security. And that's a central theme in the lives of many
people. "Should I stay single, or marry?" "Should I freelance or
work for corporate America?" "Should I swim in the ocean, or a hotel
pool?"
Unfortunately, "Should we be able to roam free, or should we scrutinize and
be scrutinized" is the question of the year, and the answer could affect
far more than just the me, myself and I of the other freedom vs. security
questions.
Jennifer
| 