Advertisement

No-Bail Ruling Targets Some Refugees

Share
Times Staff Writer

Illegal immigrants with no known links to terrorist groups can be detained indefinitely on national security grounds, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft said in a precedent-setting ruling that became public Thursday.

Advocates for immigrants immediately criticized the decision, saying Ashcroft was using the specter of terrorism to incarcerate migrants who pose no security risk.

It was unclear how the government would apply the ruling to cases involving undocumented immigrants on the Mexican and Canadian borders, since the attorney general’s main concern seemed to involve boat people from the Caribbean.

Advertisement

Ashcroft’s decision came in the case of David Joseph, an 18-year-old Haitian who was among more than 200 boat people who made a dramatic landing in Miami in October. With authorities in full pursuit, the refugees scrambled ashore and scattered along a major roadway.

An immigration judge ruled that Joseph could be released on $2,500 bond to live with his uncle while the government decided on his application for political asylum. That determination was upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals, an administrative panel that usually functions as the top referee in immigration cases.

The board rejected arguments by several government agencies that Joseph’s release could jeopardize national security by encouraging mass migration from Haiti. But Ashcroft invoked the attorney general’s prerogative to overturn board decisions.

“First, there is a concern that release of aliens [such as Joseph] would tend to encourage further surges of mass migration from Haiti by sea, with attendant strains on national and homeland security resources,” Ashcroft wrote in a 14-page decision dated April 17.

“Second, in light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there is increased necessity in preventing undocumented aliens from entering the country without the screening of the immigration inspections process.”

While Ashcroft made no assertion that Joseph was a security risk, he said that releasing him might send the wrong signal to others wishing to come to the United States.

Advertisement

An exodus of Haitian boat people could disrupt efforts by the Coast Guard and the Border Patrol to stop terrorist infiltration. “Surges in such illegal migration by sea injure national security by diverting valuable ... resources from counter-terrorism and homeland security responsibilities,” Ashcroft wrote.

Immigrant advocates said they found Ashcroft’s reasoning to be flawed, but they conceded that there was little they could do because federal laws confer broad powers on the attorney general in cases involving illegal migrants.

“The attorney general has a responsibility to outline how these particular Haitian individuals are a threat to our national security, and he has failed to do that,” said Kevin Appleby, director of refugee services for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Critics said the denial of bond to Haitians awaiting a ruling on political asylum would only sharpen the disparities between the treatment of refugees from Haiti and those from Cuba. People fleeing the Communist-ruled island are usually deemed eligible for political asylum if they can set foot on U.S. soil.

Doris Meissner, a former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said she also found the national security argument to be weak.

“From what I can tell, this is a national security issue only as a second cousin,” Meissner said. “Reading between the lines, it looks to me as though a number of other Cabinet agencies asked [Ashcroft] to look at this decision. The attorney general is not normally asked to review such matters unless people disagree.”

Advertisement

In reaching his decision, Ashcroft cited information from the State Department that people from other countries, including Pakistan and the Palestinian territories, are increasingly using Haiti as a launching point for trying to get into the United States.

“Such national security considerations clearly constitute a reasonable foundation for the exercise of my discretion to deny release on bond,” he concluded.

Advertisement