Foreign Students do Not Threaten National Security
In response to the horror of the September 11 terrorist attacks, America has demanded action, and we have gotten it. In addition to the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan and the ongoing federal investigation of the events surrounding the World Trade Center attacks, we have seen a flurry of legislative and executive action designed to increase our domestic security. Yet not all of this activity has been without controversy. From Bush's executive order authorizing the use of military tribunals to try non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism, to Attorney General John Ashcroft's call for the questioning of thousands of Middle Eastern men, government actions are sparking a crucial debate: to what extent are we willing to sacrifice civil liberties and individual rights in the quest to make our country safer?
For many students here at the university, this question is not just a matter of abstract debate. Because several of the suspects in the September 11 attacks (as well as in the previous World Trade Center bombing) are thought to have entered the United States on student visas, the relative freedom of international students to study here may soon be restricted.
In the wake of the attacks, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) called for a six-month moratorium on student visas, a proposal that was subsequently dropped under strong pressure from representatives of U.S. universities. Yet the international student visa process remains under strict scrutiny.
The Visa Entry Reform Act, currently in the Senate Judiciary committee, proposes a number of measures to toughen up the immigration and visa system. Of particular interest are two components of the bill: the implementation of a monitoring program for foreign students, and the denial of foreign student visas to nationals of "state sponsors of international terrorism." The monitoring program would ensure that students pass a background check before arrival, and are actually enrolled in a degree program once they arrive. As such, it is a reasonable response to the real threat of terrorism which we confront. It is the second component to which I wish to object.
The countries which the State Department considers to be state sponsors of terrorism are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan. Over the last four years, we have had hundreds of students from these countries enrolled at the university.
Less than one week after the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S.A. Patriot Act was introduced to Congress. One month later, the act passed in the Senate with a vote of 98-1. A frightened nation had cried for protection against further attacks, but certainly got more than they had asked for. Russell Feingold, the only Senator to vote down the act, referred to it as, “legislation on the fly, unlike anything [he] had ever seen.” In their haste to protect our great nation, Congress suspended, “normal procedural processes, such as interagency review and committee hearings,” and, “many provisions were not checked for their constitutionality, lack of judicial oversight, and potential for abuse.” Ninety-eight senators were willing to overlook key civil liberty issues contained within the 342 page act. The lone dissenting vote, Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold, felt that our battle against terrorism would be lost “without firing a shot” if we were to “sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” Feingold duly defended American civil liberties at the risk of his career, truly exemplifying political courage as defined by John F. Kennedy.
... feel rushed as they did with the signing of this Act. Congress should review some of the terminology in the Act such as the definition of ‘Domestic terrorism’ to ensure we are not inadvertently including innocent individuals under the name of national security.
Now, new international students can choose to study at any one of the over 7,000 SEVIS-certified universities in America. The schools, in turn, provide a plethora of information on the students ranging from the mundane - name, enrollment verification, date of birth - to the normally considered private information such as grades and field of study. Essentially, the SEVIS is a program designed to keep tabs on all the approximately one million international students studying here in the U.S. The SEVIS keeps a database housing all of a student's information to determine whether he or she can stay in the U.S. or can be allowed to come here in the first place.
September 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating and horrific events in the United States history. Americans feeling of a secure nation had been broken. Over 3,000 people and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed during the attacks on The World Trade Center and the Pentagon; in New York City and Washington, D.C. Today the term terrorism is known as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Birzer, Roberson). This term was clearly not defined for the United States for we had partial knowledge and experience with terrorist attacks; until the day September 11, 2001. At that time, President George W. Bush, stated over a televised address from the Oval Office, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President Bush stood by this statement for the United States was about to retaliate and change the face of the criminal justice system for terrorism.
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
Targets of suspicion: the impact of post-9/11 policies on Muslims, Arabs and South Asians in the US. (2004, May 1). Retrieved from http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/targets-suspicion-impact-post-911-policies-muslims-arabs-and-south-asians-us
Long a polarizing issue, a balance between civil liberties and national security has constantly trailed America’s pursuit of happiness. Civil liberties are defined as rights for each individual person that serve to protect said individuals, by law, from unjust governmental interference, and encompasses all interference that may infringe on given rights. Incidentally, America has sucumb to such infringments within its lifetime, some early in its history, and some with recurring now with vestiges of the more prominent liberty violations which had reigned before. A much more recent example, terrorist attacks offended on September 11 shook our nation and brought with it government reform that many had not seen before. And with these governmental reforms, America has begun to backlash after more and more information about these unjust offenses has begun to leak from both prolific media outlets and workers in government themselves. The attacks committed on September 11, 2001. Although initially intended to protect America, the war on terror has begun to encroach on civil liberties and the ...
“Grounds of admissibility and deportability are the core of U.S. immigration law” (Boswell, 125). They are the core because they regulate who is allowed to enter or remain in the United States. When it comes to submitting waivers of inadmissibility, the process can sometime be lengthy. Thus is, because the reason an individual was deemed inadmissible is taken into consideration and further investigated. In the end, the Attorney General is the one who makes the final decision to either allow or deny an individual entry into the United States. Overall, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is crucial when it comes to controlling each and every aspects of
Sekhon,Vijay. �The Civil Rights of �Others�: Antiterrorism, The Patriot Act, and Arab and South Asian American Rights in Post-9/11 American Society.� Texas Forum on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights 8.1 (2003): 117-148.
In 2001, the United States fell victim to a multitude of tragedies. The most unforgettable, of course, being the terrorist attack on September 11th. Following the threat, Congress knew something had to be done to strengthen security controls. On October 23, 2001, Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican Representative, introduced provisions to a previously sponsored House bill. By the next day, the act passed in the House with a vote ratio of three hundred and fifty-seven to sixty-six. The following day, the Senate took a vote on the bill, passing it by ninety-eight to one. Finally, on October 26, 2001, the USA Patriot Act was signed into law. The bill was intended to strengthen federal anti-terrorism investigations. But is the USA Patriot Act working to the full potential that it was originally intended? This is something that we are now going to explore. We will look deeper into, not only what the bill is, but also it’s journey to getting to the final draft and how it got passed. We will also explore the proponents and opponents of the act, and what they have to say about it. Finally, I will shed some light on who exactly is being effected now that this act is in place, and if they have been given a little too much power.
In the 1990s, global terrorism spread into the United States. After many domestic terrorist attacks such as the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and the 1995 bombing of Oklahoma City’s Federal Building, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996. This Act addressed the need to enhance the enforcement and patrolling process at America’s borders. It also informed the citizens that the government will be investigating and monitoring visa applications and
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
Our nation seems as if it is in a constant battle between freedom and safety. Freedom and security are two integral parts that keep our nation running smoothly, yet they are often seen conflicting with one another. “Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings may invoke feelings of patriotism and a call for unity, but the nation also becomes divided, and vulnerable populations become targets,” (Wootton 1). “After each attack a different group or population would become targets. “The attack on Pearl Harbor notoriously lead to Japanese Americans being imprisoned in internment camps, the attacks on 9/11 sparked hate crimes against those who appeared to be Muslim or Middle Eastern,” (Wootton 1). Often times people wind up taking sides, whether it be for personal freedoms or for national security, and as a nation trying to recover from these disasters we should be leaning on each other for support. Due to these past events the government has launched a series of antiterrorist measures – from ethnic profiling to going through your personal e-mail (Begley 1). Although there are times when personal freedoms are sacrificed for the safety of others, under certain circumstances the government could be doing more harm than good.
The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what the ‘law is”, causing a lack of circulated rule. The actual leaders with political purposes jeopardize our individual privacy rights, liberties, and freedoms.
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up one value in order to gain another. This concept of individual right goes beyond the simple idea of “individual comfort.” Personal liberties cannot be surrendered and are not to be compromised since these liberties are intangible. Individuals should not have their personal liberties exchanged for national security because individuals are guaranteed protection to these rights.