STF NA MÍDIA

Friends of U.S., Terrorists in Eyes of Law
JUSTIÇA NO EXTERIOR •
THE NEW YORK TIMES (US) • NATIONAL • 18/9/2011
By DAN FROSCH
Nassir Al-Rifahe never thought
his love for America
would be questioned.
As a member of the Iraqi
National Congress, he worked
for years to topple Saddam
Hussein before being
granted political asylum in
the United States in 1997.
But for the last decade, while
Mr. Rifahe, 57, lived quietly
with his family in Texas and
Minnesota, the Department
of Homeland Security has
refused to grant his application
for a green card, instead
letting the case languish unresolved.
Under a sweeping section of
federal immigration law, the
government considers Mr.
Rifahe to have engaged in
terrorist-related activity, making
him ineligible to live
here permanently. That the
group Mr. Rifahe worked for
was once supported by the
United States and tried to
overthrow Saddam Hussein
matters little.
“It is not fair; I want to stay
here,” Mr. Rifahe said. “How
come they helped me before,
but now they say I am a terrorist?
I can’t believe this.
Never would I do this.”
An estimated 4,000 cases
similar to Mr. Rifahe’s are on
hold around the country.
Some have dragged on for
years as immigration officials
wrestle with how to handle
people previously granted
political asylum or refugee
status in this country, but
whose past affiliations technically
bar them from permanent
residency.
Many of the cases involve
people who belonged to
groups in their homelands
once backed by Washington,
immigration lawyers and
human rights advocates say.
Often, it is their connection
to those groups that allowed
the immigrants to come here
in the first place.
The situation has created a
conundrum for United States
Citizenship and Immigration
Services, which acknowledges
that the individuals pose
no threat to national security.
But the agency says existing
law would force their green
card applications to be denied
and has instead placed the
cases on hold until special
exemptions can be created.
“The law is being applied as
a blunt instrument to label
people terrorists who didn’t
engage in any terrorist activity
and who were actually
victims,” said Anwen Hughes,
senior counsel for human
rights First, a New
York-based group that is
pushing to change the portion
of immigration law in question.
“The information about
their pasts is information
they volunteered, and in some
cases, it is the information
upon which the U.S. granted
them refugee protection
initially.”
At issue is a section of the
Immigration and Nationality
Act, which was bolstered
after the Sept. 11 attacks by
the Patriot Act and other legislation
to prevent terrorists
from entering the United
States.
As currently worded, the act
defines a terrorist group as
any organization with two or
more people that has engaged
in a range of violent activities
against persons or property.
This would include
groups that take up arms against
a government.
Simply belonging to such an
organization, which does not
have to be officially designated
by the United States as
terrorist, or providing “material
support” are grounds for
being barred from this country.
The law makes no distinction
for groups or governments
that Washington views favorably.
As a result, an assortment of
refugees and asylum-seekers
are deemed terrorists or to
S T F N A M Í D I A • 2 2 d e s e t e m b r o d e 2 0 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P Á G I N A 1 7 6