www.DemocraticFundamentalism.org - Archives - Historical Events - The War On Terrorism - 5/29/2002 Change INS Practices, Terror Study Says

	Globalization - Countries - United_States see also Archives - Historical Events - 911 Change INS practice, says terrorist study By Christian Bourge, UPI Think Tank Correspondent



	WASHINGTON, May 29 (UPI) -- Immigration policy must be re-examined and restructured so it better reflects national security interests, and immigration laws must be strictly enforced to protect the United States from terrorist threats, according to a new study from a Washington think tank. The study's conclusions are based on its examination of the immigration history of 48 foreign-born Muslims terrorists -- most with links to al Qaida -- who have been charged, convicted or who have admitted involvement in terrorist activity in the United States since 1993. "It is critically important that we develop an immigration system and policies to deal with that threat," says Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies. "Changing our immigration system is exactly the kind of reasonable means that will enhance American national security without infringing on the rights of Americans, and that is why it is exactly the area we should be focusing on." Camarota, author of the recently released report "The Open Door: How Militant Islamic Terrorists Entered and Remained in the United States, 1993-2001" found that the terrorist threat to the United States comes almost exclusively from foreign-born terrorists who enter the country from abroad. Camarota believes stricter enforcement of existing immigration laws, along with reforms in areas where policies have failed, are the keys to improving U.S. immigration policy to deal with the threat. According to his findings, one-third of the men came to the United States on temporary -- primarily tourist -- visas. The Immigration and Naturalization Service reportedly classified another third of these terrorists as lawful permanent residents, or they had become naturalized U.S. citizens. One-fourth of the 48 were illegal aliens. Three of the 48 had applications for asylum pending with the INS at the time they were discovered. Nine others had committed "significant" violations of immigration laws that warranted expulsion from the United States. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that foreign terrorists come only as temporary visitors, Camarota found that many had also taken advantage of flaws in U.S. immigration law and lax regulatory enforcement to gain entrance through other methods. Not only did they come to the country as students and tourists -- like the Sept. 11 hijackers -- but they also used business traveler visas and gained permanent legal status as seekers of political asylum. In addition, the report details various illegal means of entry they used, including sneaking across the border, entering as stowaways on ships, and gaining entry with false passports. The report notes that the INS failed to detect the actions of terrorists classified as legal citizens because they obtained their status through fraudulent means such as fake marriages. Overall, the report finds that the overburdened INS system allowed many of these terrorists to get visas that should have been denied. Such findings align with a report released last week by the inspector general at the Justice Department that discovered widespread failures at the INS. Investigators found that if the INS has followed its own regulations, the Sept. 11 hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi would have been denied the student visas granted posthumously in March. Information detailing that the two men left the United States twice during the visa application period -- which is forbidden -- was reportedly in the agency's computer system, but the officer in charge of the visa change requests never checked the system for such data. The Justice Department also found that the INS system for tracking foreign students is antiquated and inadequate. The agency says a new and improved system will be up and running by July of next year. Camarota notes that recognizing failures in the student visa program and focusing on the aspects of immigration policy that deal with short-term entrants ignores the important fact that many of the Sept. 11 terrorists were not in the country under temporary visas. His report makes several recommendations about how to fix the problems with immigration policy, including the stricter and more consistent enforcement of existing laws. He believes this step could stop some terrorists at the border, and would force border agents to enforce regulations as they are written. "It is obvious that if we have a system in which we ignore laws, it is very easy for those who are charged with enforcing them to also ignore them," he said. In addition, he recommends that overseas visa processing be improved to include more vigorous background checks and interviews for all applicants. He says that skepticism needs to be the guiding force behind all application checks, and observes that "unfortunately" the visa process has evolved to a point where it is the visa applicant who is being served, not the American people. Camarota's most significant recommendation calls for an overall reduction in the level of both temporary and permanent immigration into the United States. He says this would mean not only fewer people for INS to track but would give the State Department and INS the "breathing space" needed to deal with the backlog of close to five million pending visa applications. Jeff Passel, director of the program for research on immigration policy at the Urban Institute told UPI that although there is certainly a need for reform at the INS, the recommendations and problems addressed by the Center for Immigration Studies report were known long before the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Passel also questions the logic of scaling back immigration levels. "It is always a good idea to reform things and to do them better," said Passel. "(But) I am not sure that a reduction in overall immigration solves this problem. We are talking about 48 people." He says that although the idea of those 48 people slipping though may be "frightening," they represent only a small fraction of the estimated 30 to 50 million foreigners who legally and illegally enter the United States each year. He added that this sort of mass transference of population is the unstoppable result of the globalization of the economy. Passel also questioned just where such cuts could be made. "We have to remember that most of the immigrants that are admitted to the United States are admitted because they are joining family members here," he said. "The question is whose wife would you not let come here or whose kids you would not let come in?" Jan Ting, a law professor at Temple University and former assistant commissioner at the INS, says that the Center for Immigration Studies report is on the mark about the problem of proper enforcement of immigration law and the changes needed at the agency. He believes, however, that this lack of strict enforcement can be traced to the divided feelings among Americans about immigration policy. On one hand, people want stringent immigration controls, but on the other they have been unwilling to deal with the consequences of strong enforcement, he said. Ting is also critical of the approach taken in a recently passed House measure that would split up the immigration service into two separate agencies. He argues that the problem is not with the agency's organization but with its overwhelming mandate. "The idea that we will fix these problems by rearranging the lines on an organization chart ignores the problem," he said. "The problem at the INS is not mission conflict but mission overload." All three men believe a key area of concern from a security standpoint is the federal government's visa waiver program for many European countries. The program allows those with passports from certain countries in Europe to enter the United States without a visa. These critics point out that Islamic radicalism and well-known terrorists have become established in these countries -- which was not the not the case when the visa waiver program began. "It seems to me that we need to look at (the visa waiver program again)," said Passel. "The whole question of immigration admission to the country needs to be looked at from a security perspective in ways clearly different than we handled them before 9-11." According to Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, the kinds of reforms that are being discussed must also be made in the real world where budget concerns conflict with policy needs. He says that many of the current problems are the result of the INS's immense mandate, and the historical unwillingness in Washington to spend the money needed to do the job properly. "The result is that you get what you pay for," said Krikorian. "(And) that is an immigration system that doesn't work very well." But Passel argues that many of the changes that are need are not "budget busters." For instance, he says that one of the best and cheapest changes that can be made is to implement better cooperation between the relevant federal agencies on this issue. "That is one of things that clearly could help, both the INS and the law enforcement agencies knowing which people to be on the lookout for," said Passel. "The INS being able to tell the airlines (through the Federal Aviation Administration or another agency) which people to be on the lookout for, for instance, doesn't cost very much money."