16.12.2012 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!