|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
ADC Update:
ADC President Ziad Asali Urges Attorney General to Drop LA8 Case
ADC President Ziad Asali has written to Attorney General John
Ashcroft urging him to terminate efforts to deport members of the
"LA8," a group of immigrants originally arrested in 1987
for their alleged political beliefs and activities. Dr. Asali
wrote, "This case is notorious in the Arab community, because
from the outset the government admitted that none of the
individuals had committed any criminal, much less terrorist,
activity, yet they have been targeted for more than sixteen years
for their alleged political associations." Dr. Asali
powerfully argued that an "amicable resolution of these cases
would not require the government to allow anyone to remain here
illegally, would reassure the civil rights and immigrant
communities that the government will not target people for their
political activities, would avoid the embarrassment of enforcing a
long-repealed and unconstitutional immigration law, and most
importantly, would do justice to individuals and families who have
been in legal limbo for sixteen years." The full text of Dr.
Asali's letter to Attorney General Ashcroft on behalf of the
"LA8" is reproduced below and can be read in PDF format
online at ADC.org.
LETTER FROM ADC PRESIDENT ZIAD ASALI TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
URGING AN END TO THE LA8 CASE:
May 22, 2003
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
10th and Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
We write to urge you to terminate the government's longstanding
efforts to deport a group of seven Palestinians and a Kenyan in
Los Angeles. This case is notorious in the Arab community, because
from the outset the government admitted that none of the
individuals had committed any criminal, much less terrorist,
activity, yet they have been targeted for more than sixteen years
for their alleged political associations. The American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee has been involved in the case from
its outset, because of the widespread negative impact its
prosecution has had on the civil liberties of everyone in the Arab
community. We believe that a decision not to pursue this case at
this juncture would send an important and much-needed message to
the Arab community in the United States, namely that the
Department is interested in pursuing terrorists, not political
activists. In addition, in our view there is no warrant for
pursuing the case either under the long-repealed McCarran-Walter
Act charges that are the only ones now pending, or under the new
Patriot Act provisions.
The eight, known as the "LA 8," were initially arrested
and charged in 1987 with being members of a group that advocates
world communism, a deportable offense under McCarran-Walter Act
provisions then part of the immigration law. In the 16 years that
the case has been pending, the McCarran-Walter Act was declared
unconstitutional and then repealed, the INS's case was enjoined
for many years on First Amendment selective prosecution grounds,
the politics of the Middle East have changed substantially, and
the eight individuals initially targeted have grown up, and are no
longer student activists, but middle-aged supporters of American
families. They have all lived here for at least two decades as
law-abiding members and valued members of the American community.
In addition, all are either already permanent resident aliens, or
would be eligible to become permanent residents but for the
political charges the government has advanced against them.
Immigration Judge Bruce Einhorn recently ruled that the only
pending charges against Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh, the two
"lead respondents," both of whom are permanent resident
aliens, are those stemming from the case's beginning, under the
long-repealed McCarran-Walter Act. Those provisions were repealed
in 1990, but still technically apply to cases initiated before
1990. Judge Einhorn has given the government until June 9 to file
a brief stating whether it plans to proceed under the pending
McCarran-Walter Act charges, dismiss the case, or file new charges
under the Patriot Act. We strongly urge you to dismiss the case.
These individuals, who FBI Director William Webster long ago
admitted had engaged in no criminal activity, have suffered long
enough, and we ask you to exercise your discretion to terminate
the cases at this point.
The eight were arrested in January 1987 for their alleged
political associations with the Popular Front for the Liberation
of Palestine (PFLP), a faction of the PLO, even though then FBI
Director William Webster admitted in congressional testimony that
an extensive FBI investigation had found no evidence of any
criminal conduct. The government has conceded in the litigation
that it singled the eight out for deportation based on such
activities as distributing PFLP literature, recruiting members,
and raising funds for lawful activities of the PFLP.
In 1989, a federal court declared unconstitutional the statutory
provisions under which the eight were initially charged. In 1990,
while that decision was on appeal, Congress repealed the
McCarran-Walter provisions. But the case proceeded, because the
INS had substituted technical visa violation charges for six of
the eight, and filed new charges against the two permanent
residents, Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh, accusing them of
having provided "material support" to a terrorist
organization.
The federal courts then enjoined the deportations, finding that
the government's own admissions established that they were
selectively targeted for deportation based on activities that
would be protected by the First Amendment if engaged in by U.S.
citizens. That injunction was lifted only when Congress in 1996
enacted a provision that the Supreme Court interpreted to divest
district courts of jurisdiction to hear selective prosecution
claims. As a result, the case is now back in immigration
proceedings.
Immigration Judge Einhorn's latest ruling holds that the only
pending charges against Hamide and Shehadeh are the original
ideological deportation provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act. As
noted, those provisions have already been held unconstitutional
and repealed. While they may technically apply here, surely the
United States has little interest in enforcing long-repealed
immigration provisions based on charges of association and
ideology alone.
It also does not make sense to proceed against these individuals
under the Patriot Act amendments to the INA. As you know, those
provisions make it a deportable offense to have provided material
support to a terrorist organization, but where, as here, the
organization was not designated as such when the support was
allegedly provided, the alien may not be deported if he shows that
he did not know nor reasonably should have known that his support
would further the group's terrorist activity. In this case, the
government would face three hurdles: (1) proving that the
individuals actually supported the PFLP, as opposed to various
charitable institutions alleged to be in some way associated with
the PFLP; (2) disproving the individual's assertions that they
neither knew nor reasonably should have known that they were
supporting any terrorist activity, as their express intentions
were to support only humanitarian and charitable programs; and (3)
surviving a constitutional challenge to this provision, inasmuch
as it penalizes individuals without proof of specific intent to
further a group's illegal activities. Is this really the case the
government wants to make its first deportation case under the
newly expanded Patriot Act provisions? In addition, this case is
of legendary proportions in the Arab communities in the United
States, and the source of a great deal of resentment about the
selective targeting of Arab political activists. Particularly
given William Webster's admissions that none of these individuals
engaged in any criminal activity, the case has long sown a great
deal of distrust in the community about the government's motives.
To drop the case now would send an important signal to the
community that the government is not interested in targeting
political activism, but terrorism. The good faith generated by
such a bold decision would likely reap significant gains in the
war on terrorism.
Finally, whatever one's views of the merits of the case when it
began, it makes little sense at this point to pursue deportation
efforts against a group of people who have lived in this country
for a minimum of two decades, all of whom have extensive family
ties here, and none of whom are engaged in any activity that the
government would consider illegal or threatening. In addition, as
noted above, all eight would be eligible to remain here
permanently were it not for the INS's actions against them.
Two -- Hamide and Shehadeh -- were permanent residents when the
case began, and remain permanent residents today. Three others
have become permanent residents since the case began, and
proceedings against them have already been terminated. And the
remaining three are eligible to become permanent residents.
Accordingly, amicable resolution of these cases would not require
the government to allow anyone to remain here illegally, would
reassure the civil rights and immigrant communities that the
government will not target people for their political activities,
would avoid the embarrassment of enforcing a long-repealed and
unconstitutional immigration law, and most importantly, would do
justice to individuals and families who have been in legal limbo
for sixteen years.
Thank you for your consideration. We would be honored to meet with
you or your designates about this matter at your earliest
convenience.
Sincerely,
Ziad J. Asali, MD
President, ADC
cc: Ralph Boyd, Justice Department Civil Rights Division
================================
ADC
4201 Connecticut Ave, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20008, U.S.A.
Tel: (202) 244-2990
Fax: (202) 244-3196
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 << Click
Salam Radio
The Arab American
News
Palestine
|
|
