updating brignoni-ponce - New York University School of Law
updating brignoni-ponce - New York University School of Law
updating brignoni-ponce - New York University School of Law
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
584 LEGISLATION AND PUBLIC POLICY [Vol. 11:567<br />
try unlawfully. 98 Courts have permitted the consideration <strong>of</strong> Asian<br />
appearance as one <strong>of</strong> many factors to justify interrogation by immigration<br />
enforcement <strong>of</strong>ficers. 99 An enforcement policy in Portland, Oregon,<br />
that targeted Asian tourists in order to ask them about their<br />
immigration status resulted in a major airline cancelling direct flights<br />
from Japan to the newly nick-named “Deportland.” 100<br />
Additionally, Middle Easterners and South Asians have been pr<strong>of</strong>iled<br />
as terrorists and have received disparate treatment because <strong>of</strong><br />
their racial appearance. 101 This treatment intensified after September<br />
11, 2001. 102 For example, the government adopted a “hold until<br />
cleared” policy that resulted in Middle Eastern men being held in extreme<br />
detention conditions, sometimes for months after the point at<br />
which they could have been deported, so that the FBI could confirm<br />
that they were not suspected <strong>of</strong> terrorist activities. 103 Middle Easterners<br />
and South Asians have also been pr<strong>of</strong>iled at airports and sub-<br />
98. Johnson, Challenging Racial Pr<strong>of</strong>iling, supra note 29, at 349–50 (describing R<br />
incidents where African American citizens have been detained and strip-searched at<br />
airports by immigration <strong>of</strong>ficers who accused them <strong>of</strong> having false immigration documents<br />
or <strong>of</strong> not being U.S. citizens).<br />
99. See Cheung Tin Wong v. INS, 468 F.2d 1123, 1127–28 (D.C. Cir. 1972); In re<br />
King & Yang, 16 I. & N. Dec. 502, 504–05 (BIA 1978).<br />
100. Johnson, Challenging Racial Pr<strong>of</strong>iling, supra note 29, at 352. R<br />
101. Id. at 351 & n.56.<br />
102. Susan M. Akram & Kevin R. Johnson, Race, Civil Rights, and Immigration<br />
<strong>Law</strong> After September 11, 2001: The Targeting <strong>of</strong> Arabs and Muslims, 58 N.Y.U. ANN.<br />
SURV. AM. L. 295, 295–96 (2002).<br />
103. These conditions included being “smashed into walls, repeatedly stripped and<br />
searched, and <strong>of</strong>ten denied basic legal rights and religious privileges.” Richard A.<br />
Serrano, 9/11 Prisoner Abuse Suit Could Be Landmark; Rounded Up, Muslim Immigrants<br />
Were Beaten in Jail, L.A. TIMES, Nov. 20, 2006, at A1. Eighty-four <strong>of</strong> the<br />
estimated 1200 September 11 detainees were held in the Metropolitan Detention<br />
Center in Brooklyn, <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong>, where they “were held under the most restrictive<br />
conditions possible, which included lockdown for at least 23 hours per day, extremely<br />
limited access to telephones, and restrictive escort procedures any time the detainees<br />
were moved outside their cells.” OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE,<br />
THE SEPTEMBER 11 DETAINEES: A REVIEW OF THE TREATMENT OF ALIENS HELD ON<br />
IMMIGRATION CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTIGATION OF THE SEPTEMBER<br />
11 ATTACKS 157 (2003), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0306/full.pdf<br />
(internal quotations omitted). Of the 762 September 11 detainees whose cases the<br />
Inspector General reviewed, about 33% were from Pakistan, 15% were from Egypt,<br />
and most others were from other Middle Eastern countries. Id. at 21. The legality <strong>of</strong><br />
the “hold until cleared” policy and the conditions <strong>of</strong> September 11 detainees’ detention<br />
is currently being litigated. See Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 177–78 (2d Cir.<br />
2007) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss all <strong>of</strong> plaintiff’s claims except for procedural<br />
due process), petition for cert. filed, 76 U.S.L.W. 3499 (U.S. Mar. 7, 2008)<br />
(No. 07-1150); Turkmen v. Ashcr<strong>of</strong>t, No. 02 CV 2307 (JG), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS<br />
39170, at *2–4 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2006) (dismissing plaintiffs Fourth Amendment<br />
and Fifth Amendment claims but preserving conditions claims), appealed and argued<br />
before the Second Circuit, Feb. 14, 2008.