Grading City Hall: See our report card for L.A. City Council President Herb Wesson
Opinion Editorial

The 'terrorist screening database': Are they all terrorists?

If the ACLU is right, the government needs to rethink its 'terrorist watch list' procedures

This page has criticized the government's infamous "no-fly list" because it is so manifestly susceptible to error. Now comes new information about how the federal government compiles the bigger, broader "terrorist screening database" from which the no-fly list is drawn — and how that database is being used to deny people a chance for U.S. citizenship.

The database, also known as the "terrorist watch list," reportedly holds more than 1 million names of suspected terrorists. But according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a lawsuit on the subject last month, the government has failed to ensure that innocent people are not listed in the database or, if they do end up there, that they are promptly removed. In 2013, according to a government filing in another lawsuit, 468,749 people were nominated for the database and only 1% were rejected — even though the Government Accountability Office found in 2009 that 35% of the nominations were outdated and that tens of thousands of names had been entered into the database without an adequate factual basis. What's more, the nominating guidelines allow people to be listed simply because they are related to or know someone who is suspected of terrorism, even when there is "insufficient derogatory information" for the person to otherwise be listed on his own.

If being on the list had no practical effect, that would be one thing. But according to the ACLU, the Department of Homeland Security, through its U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services division, checks the names of people seeking to live legally in the United States against the list. If there is a match, the applicant is deemed a "national security concern" and his or her application for citizenship or lawful permanent resident status can be denied or left in limbo. If true, this is worrisome. We expect the government to refuse U.S. citizenship or residency to terrorists and even suspected terrorists, but we also expect its information to be carefully screened and credible.

Here's another concern: Sometimes, according to the ACLU, Citizenship and Immigration Services asks questions on the FBI's behalf during naturalization interviews with applicants, a troubling blurring of lines between immigration work and law enforcement. The agency also denies naturalization to people who have donated to groups the government believes are linked to terrorism, even if there is no evidence that the applicants knew of the terror connections.

If the ACLU is right, the rules needs to be rethought. Yes, the government has a responsibility to protect the country from terrorists. But it shouldn't require a legal challenge for the government to respect the basic civil liberties and due process rights of those who apply to become American citizens.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • America's Kafkaesque 'no-fly list'

    America's Kafkaesque 'no-fly list'

    In the aftermath of 9/11, the United States adopted sweeping laws and regulations aimed at reducing the likelihood of a repeat tragedy. That was not only the government's right but its responsibility. Yet many of the measures unjustifiably eroded basic civil liberties, as the country was reminded...

  • Treatment, not just jail, for the mentally ill

    Treatment, not just jail, for the mentally ill

    The U.S. Department of Justice and Los Angeles County officials are negotiating the details of a consent decree to govern the treatment of mentally ill inmates in the troubled county jails, following more than a decade of reported abuse and excessive force by sheriff's deputies. The final terms...

  • Does owning a gun make you safer?

    Does owning a gun make you safer?

    The United States has the most heavily armed civilian population in the First World; our homes contain enough firearms for every man, woman and child.

  • Why let ex-presidents cash in?

    Why let ex-presidents cash in?

    President Harry Truman once said that he would never lend himself "to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency." His successors have not held themselves to the same standard.

  • Defunding Planned Parenthood is not the same as repealing the right to abortion

    Defunding Planned Parenthood is not the same as repealing the right to abortion

    The GOP-controlled Congress is taking up the cause, once again, of defunding Planned Parenthood. This latest effort comes in response to macabre hidden-camera videos shot by the Center for Medical Progress of staff at Planned Parenthood talking about the grisly practice of chopping up fetuses for...

  • Obama's Clean Energy Plan doesn't go far enough

    Obama's Clean Energy Plan doesn't go far enough

    The coal industry already has its legal claws honed for a court battle over President Obama's Clean Energy Plan, which was unveiled Monday, claiming that it will cost too much and render people jobless. Certainly, in the short term at least, slowing climate change by reducing carbon emissions won't...

  • Political grandstanding on Planned Parenthood

    Political grandstanding on Planned Parenthood

    An effort by Senate Republicans to defund Planned Parenthood failed Monday evening when a procedural measure fell short of the 60 votes needed to proceed. Good. The bill, introduced in the wake of several undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing what the organization does...

  • Does a voting-rights case threaten experimentation?

    Does a voting-rights case threaten experimentation?

    Suppose a state adopts a traditional approach to voting – only one day on which voters can cast their ballots at polling places, with limited opportunities for absentee voting.