Surge in Hate Crimes Followed by Official U.S. Targeting of Muslim, Arab Men

By Riad Z. Abdelkarim, M.D.

For Arabs and Muslims living, working, and going to school in the United States, the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003 were marked by poignant reminders of the unease and apprehension that has permeated their communities in the ongoing aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. First, the FBI released its annual hate crimes report for 2001, which showed a marked increase in hate crimes targeting Muslims and people who are or appear to be of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent. Then, the INS announced a controversial new “special registration” process for non-immigrant visa holders from predominantly Muslim and Arab countries. That move rekindled concerns among these communities of unfair ethnic and religious profiling.

The FBI report found that incidents targeting people, institutions and businesses identified with the Islamic faith increased from a mere 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001—a rise of 1,600 percent.

Although the statistics did not specify the dates on which the 481 incidents occurred, the FBI theorized in somewhat understated fashion that the increased attacks were “presumably…a result of the heinous incidents that occurred on Sept. 11.’’ According to the report, most of the incidents against Muslims and people who are or were believed to be of Middle Eastern ethnicity involved assaults and intimidation. Three cases of murder or manslaughter and 35 cases of arson also were reported, however.

Unfortunately, as disturbing as these statistics are, the numbers of hate crimes reported by the FBI most likely vastly underestimate the true number of incidents that took place, as many Muslims are believed not to have reported such incidents to law enforcement authorities. According to statistics gathered by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a national Muslim civil rights and advocacy group, as of February 2002 the number of hate crimes and “anti-Muslim” incidents reported by American Muslims exceeded 1,700. These ranged from public harassment and hate mail to bomb threats, death threats, physical assault, property damage, and murder.

One question that has arisen in the aftermath of this surge in hate crimes is whether the U.S. government responded appropriately to the post-911 environment of anti-Muslim hysteria. The answer is both yes and no, according to a recently released report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), entitled We Are Not the Enemy: Hate Crimes Against Arabs, Muslims, and Those Perceived to be Arab or Muslim After September 11.

“Government officials didn’t sit on their hands while Muslims and Arabs were attacked after Sept. 11,” said Amardeep Singh, author of the report and U.S. Program researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But law enforcement and other government agencies should have been better prepared for this kind of onslaught.”

“The U.S. contradicted its anti-prejudice message by directing anti-terrorism efforts at Arabs and Muslims.”

The HRW report praises the official condemnation of hate crimes after Sept. 11 by public figures, including President George W. Bush. It notes, however, that “the U.S. government contradicted its anti-prejudice message by directing its anti-terrorism efforts—including secret immigration detention and FBI interviews of thousands of non-citizens—at Arabs and Muslims.”

Indeed, after the initial wave of hate crimes against American Muslims and Arab-Americans, a second manifestation of the post-9/11 backlash ensued. Sadly, this backlash was in large part sanctioned by and carried out by our own government. It is interesting to note that one category of incidents compiled by CAIR—not to be found in the FBI report—is “FBI/Police/INS Intimidation,” with a total of 224 reported cases. As HRW’s Singh notes, “Since Sept. 11, a pall of suspicion has been cast over Arabs and Muslims in the United States. Public officials can help reduce bias violence against them by ensuring that the ‘war against terrorism’ is focused on criminal behavior rather than whole communities.”

This “pall of suspicion” has been extended further with the INS’ controversial new “special registration” program, which overwhelmingly targets non-immigrant visa holders from Muslim and Arab countries. Attorney General John Ashcroft initially announced the new program, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), in June 2002.

At that time, Ashcroft claimed the new program would “expand substantially America’s scrutiny of those foreign visitors who may present an elevated national security risk.” NSEERS requires non-immigrant visitors from countries deemed to be of “highest terrorism risk” to register with the U.S. government and be photographed and fingerprinted. The Justice Department estimated that between 100,000 to 200,000 visitors would be subject to the registration program.

Civil liberties groups, some members of Congress, and Arab and Muslim American groups immediately criticized the program, saying it singled out Muslims from Middle Eastern countries.

“It’s pretty obvious that this plan won’t work at anything except allowing the government to essentially ‘pick on’ people who haven’t done anything wrong but happen to come from the administration’s idea of the wrong side of the global tracks,” said Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Selective enforcement of any law based on unchangeable characteristics like race, ethnicity or national origin is at its core un-American.”

An Eventful Date

The first registration deadline was Dec. 16, 2002, and targeted males aged 16 and over from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Sudan. That date did not pass uneventfully. In Southern California, hundreds of men and teenage boys were arrested at INS offices as they voluntarily tried to comply with the new regulations. Many of these were Iranians—students, professionals, and others--as California is home to an estimated 600,000 Persians. Relatives who accompanied their male family members to INS offices in Southern California, expecting a 10- to 15-minute registration process as promised by the INS, instead left the offices sobbing and without their loved ones.

INS officials stated that those detained were held on immigration violation charges. Many of these had nearly completed the process for legal residency; others were in the midst of asylum or status adjustment applications. Although the Department of Justice and the INS refused to say how many people had been apprehended in California or around the country, estimates were as high as 1,000 in southern California alone. Some immediately posted bail and were released pending deportation hearings. Others, however, languished for days in crowded, unsanitary conditions where some claimed harsh treatment from authorities.

Civil rights groups, and Arab, Muslim, and Iranian-American groups and leaders immediately cried foul. Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU’s Southern California chapter, described the arrests as “shocking,” and reminiscent of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Other community leaders ridiculed the government’s contention that the special registration process improved the security of our nation. “Terrorists most likely wouldn’t come to the INS to register,” scoffed Sabiha Khan of the Southern California chapter of CAIR. And Peter Schey, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, contended that “No undocumented terrorist would come forward....The program is being used as a scam to lure people into INS offices supposedly to register, when what they really face is arrest, detention and even deportation.”

Two days after the initial deadline and mass detentions, thousands of people—mostly Iranian-Americans—rallied in front of the Westwood Federal Building in Los Angeles. Some carried signs that read: “What’s next? Concentration camps?”; “Detain terrorists, not innocent immigrants”; and “Free our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons.” Kayhan Shakib, president of the Iranian-American Lawyers Association, which helped organize the protest, said the INS was not adequately prepared to handle the hundreds of people who went there to register on the day of the deadline, resulting in the unnecessary detainment of individuals.

Later the same week, hundreds of community members attended an Orange County town hall meeting hosted by CAIR and co-sponsored by other community organizations, where they heard such speakers as the wife of one detained man cry while she described her family’s ordeal. Meanwhile Stephen Thom, a federal mediator with the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service, was flown down from Sacramento to address the concerns of an increasingly angry Iranian-American community. His comments to about 40 community leaders are representative of the apparent intimidation tactics currently undertaken by the Justice Department. “I understand that there have been some demonstrations and some marches,” Thom stated, then warned of the “negative effect” of such demonstrations. “It makes other people think you don’t want to be here,” he said. “I think we need to look at what is the impact of open, glaring challenges to our system.”

The following week, four national organizations filed a class action lawsuit against Attorney General Ashcroft and immigration officials, asking for an injunction to prevent the INS from further detaining individuals in the process of applying for residency. The lawsuit was filed by the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Alliance of Iranian-Americans, CAIR, and the National Council of Pakistani-Americans.

“The effort to deport law-abiding people who could just as easily be allowed to continue the immigration process seriously undermines prospects for future compliance and constitutes an absurd waste of resources,” the four groups said in a statement. “The mass arrests have further eroded confidence in the fairness of the INS and the immigration system among Arab and Muslim communities.”

In a setback for those filing the suit, the Justice Department declared the following week that federal courts had no jurisdiction to review decisions carried out by the INS, with that power reserved only for the Supreme Court.

The Second Deadline

The second INS deadline, Jan. 10, approached against this backdrop, with fear, anxiety, and anger rising in the Middle Eastern and Muslim communities. That deadline affected males from an additional 13 countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Eritrea, Lebanon, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. With the exception of North Korea, all are predominantly Muslim nations. This time, American Muslim groups were better prepared. The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) stationed human rights monitors at INS registration stations in 10 cities around the country. And CAIR offices across the nation provided legal referral services to those needing assistance and sponsored several “know your rights” seminars and workshops for those affected by the registration process. This time, although tensions remained high, there were no reports of widespread arrests or detentions.

Under continuous pressure from community organizations, and even from some elected officials, the INS announced a grace period for individuals from countries in the first two groups who had failed to register. These individuals were granted a second chance to register from Jan. 27 to Feb. 7.

Eventually, however, even nationals of governments supposedly “friendly” to the U.S. were included in the INS special registration program. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were added to the list, with an initial deadline of Feb. 21, extended to March 21. Then, citizens of staunch U.S. allies Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait—as well as Bangladesh and Indonesia—must register by April 25 (extended from an initial deadline of March 28).

On the other hand, in an incident which dramatically demonstrated the persistent political impotence of the Arab-American and American Muslim communities, the non-Muslim nation of Armenia was also placed on the “special registration” list, but was removed less than 24 hours later, following intense lobbying by the Armenian-American community and its friends in Congress.

Amnesty International (AI) eventually weighed in on the controversial registration process. In a letter sent to Attorney General Ashcroft on Jan. 10 (the second deadline date), AI “expressed concern” that NSEERS “could violate United Nations and international treaties to which the U.S. is party.” AI’s letter went on to call upon U.S. authorities “to review its immigration laws and procedures to ensure that they are administered in accordance with international law.”

AI was especially concerned about the blatant racial profiling manifested by the targeted INS registration process. “Under international standards, targeting individuals on the basis of national origin is tantamount to racial discrimination,” stated Dr. William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA (AIUSA). “We are concerned that the INS, in requiring that nationals from specific countries submit to this process, is actively engaged in racial profiling.”

In its letter to Ashcroft, AI also noted that because the “special registration order applies only to immigrants from selected countries while similarly situated immigrants from other countries are not affected…this would appear to be in breach of the right to non-discrimination recognized under international law.”

Benjamin Jealous of Amnesty’s Domestic Human Rights Program commented on the irony that “those who fail to comply with the registration process face criminal charges and immediate expulsion—yet, in many cases, compliance has seemingly led to numerous rights violations…It is deeply disturbing that in the U.S., following the rules can lead to denial of legal counsel, food and necessary medicine or even to physical mistreatment.”

Despite widespread criticism of the special registration policy, the Justice Department and INS have shown no signs of abandoning the program, even leaving open the possibility that more countries might be added to the list in coming weeks. In the meantime, some of those due to register by spring have panicked, attempting to flee with their families to Canada. Asylum-seekers to Canada, however, have been rejected and sent back to the U.S., where out-of-status males have been detained by immigration officials upon their attempted return. As a result, entire families have been stranded in border towns, some living in their cars. In towns in Michigan, Vermont, and New York, desperate families have sought food and shelter as they await an uncertain future, many without their primary breadwinners.

These are troubled times indeed for American Muslims, Arab- and Iranian-Americans. While the surge in hate crimes against those who are or appear to be Muslim has thankfully died down, there currently is great concern among these communities about the likelihood of another misguided backlash should our nation go to war against Iraq. And the continued officially sanctioned harassment of Arabs and Muslims—citizens, immigrants, and students alike—by our own government through such policies as the INS special registration program and an array of other increasingly draconian tactics does little to alleviate the growing unease of American Muslims.

Dr. Riad Z. Abdelkarim is a physician, American Muslim activist, and writer who lives in Southern California.