Asylum-seekers blocked by anti-terror laws

Advocates say U.S. regulations need reform

December 22, 2006|By Nicole Gaouette | Nicole Gaouette,LOS ANGELES TIMES

WASHINGTON -- The first time they came for her, members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia shoved the 31-year-old nurse blindfolded into the back of a green Renault sedan. After a seemingly endless trip, her kidnappers took her to a house and forced her to treat one of their commandants, who was writhing in pain from a bullet wound to the leg.

The woman was abducted seven more times in 1997 and 1998 to give medical care to FARC guerrillas. Each time, she said, they warned her not to go to the police. "I know you have a daughter," she recalled one man saying as he prodded her back with his gun. She fled the country in 2000, after her cousin was tortured and killed, eventually settling in Northern California, working as a nurse and raising her daughter.

Today, her hopes of staying in the U.S. have run smack into the federal government's war on terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security rejected her claim for asylum. Their reason: By giving the guerrillas medical care - willingly or not - she was supporting terrorism.

Laws passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, deny admission to anyone who has provided "material support" - money, food, clothing, advice - to terrorist groups. In the past few years, these provisions and the definition of terrorism have been expanded to the point where they are disqualifying people who even immigration judges agree pose no threat to the U.S.

Refugee advocates cite cases in which the administration has denied asylum to Liberian women because they were forced to cook and clean for rebel groups that raped them and killed family members. Colombians who have paid kidnappers' ransoms to free family members also have been barred for providing material support. So many refugee applicants have been blocked for this reason that last year the United Nations Refugee Agency stopped trying to settle Colombians in the U.S.

Critics of the government's policy, who are pushing for legislation next year to change the system, say that such disqualifications are a big reason why refugee admissions in fiscal year 2006 fell to 41,277 from more than 50,000 in each of the two previous years. The material support clause has even snared American allies who fought alongside U.S. troops or at U.S. behest. Cubans who tried to overthrow Fidel Castro in the Bay of Pigs uprising are being denied entry, as are Montagnards and Hmong who fought alongside American troops in Vietnam.

Some 2,300 former combatants who already have been admitted to the U.S. are now unable to apply for permanent legal resident status, a step toward citizenship, because they fear that immigration judges would have to deport them under the expanded definition of terrorism, said Cassandra Champion, director of communications of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

The administration defines a terrorist organization as any group of two or more people, organized or not, who use any device or weapon to cause injury to person or property. Motive is not a consideration, the person's frame of mind is not an issue, and no exceptions are made if someone helped a designated terrorist group, like the Colombian nurse, at the point of a gun.

"They knew about my daughter, they knew where my parents are, they can make you disappear and there's nobody in my country who can help you," said the nurse, now 40, in a telephone interview. She asked that her name not be used because she fears for her family's safety in Colombia. "What would you do? I never did anything because I wanted to."

Unless she wins an appeal in court, she faces deportation.

Administration officials say they are trying to strike a balance between honoring the American tradition of welcoming asylum-seekers and refugees while managing the security risks of a world transformed by Sept. 11. That kind of transition takes time, they say.

"The president has said he wants to let refugees in," said Paul Rosenzweig, a senior policy adviser at DHS. "In the same vein, he's said he doesn't want to let dangerous people in. The conundrum is that this law applies to both, and the process of sorting them out is not as easy as waiving a magic wand."

The government's policy has brought opposition from an unlikely alliance of conservatives, refugee advocates and constitutional experts, who say the Bush administration is clinging to the harshest possible interpretation of the laws.

Michael Horowitz, a former Reagan administration official and senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, is scathingly critical of the administration's stance - particularly as it applies to freedom fighters and the broad definition of terrorism. He notes that, as written, it would apply to Jews who rose up against the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto.

"The administration is being undermined by this caricature of conservatism that is victimizing heroes," Horowitz said. "How does it advance national security when we're defining as terrorists people who fought on our side?"

Refugee advocates have been campaigning for change since the provisions were expanded by the Patriot Act in 2001 and the REAL ID Act of 2005. Lately, there are signs change may be coming.

This month, the administration sent suggested revisions to Republican lawmakers, in the hope that they would be passed before the 109th Congress adjourned. That didn't happen, and now DHS officials say they hope for legislation next year.

The administration's proposals would expand the use of government-issued waivers that allow an otherwise banned group or person into the country.

While the waivers can cover people who offered material support to so-called freedom fighters, they do not extend to the fighters themselves. The administration proposes to expand the waivers to include freedom fighters, but only if DHS, the Justice Department and the State Department agree. The administration would be able to revoke the waiver at any time, for any reason.

Nicole Gaouette writes for the Los Angeles Times.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.