----

**U.S.Commission on Civil RightsBriefing on Boundaries of Justice:Immigration Policies Post-September 11th**

**October12, 2001 **

----

**ExecutiveSummary**

----

The U.S.Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) held a public briefing on October 12,2001, on United States immigration policies in the aftermath of recent terroristactivities. The briefing examined the civil rights implications of these attackson the evolution of this nation�s immigration policies, practices, and laws.There were three panels of speakers. Panel one consisted of representatives fromcommunity organizations who provided accounts from their constituents; panel twoconsisted of legal experts and scholars; and panel three consisted ofrepresentatives from two federal agencies: the Immigration and NaturalizationService (INS) and the Department of Transportation (DOT).

Panelistsdiscussed issues of harassment, discrimination, and other possible infringementsof civil rights resulting from fears of recent terrorism. They discussedproposed civil rights implications of anti-terrorism legislation as well asexamined the concerns about the federal government�s role in implementingproper security procedures at airports and protecting civil rights in theprocess. Panelists spoke about racial, ethnic, and religious profiling in timesof heightened concern about national security and reviewed current and proposedimmigration detention policies in the anti-terrorism legislation. They also maderecommendations on how the Commission could be involved in combatingdiscrimination in the wake of the terrorist attacks.

Thisbriefing summary represents the views of the participants as of October 12,2001. Subsequent developments since then are not reflected in this summary. Forexample, on October 26, the anti-terrorism legislation was signed into law asthe U.S.A. Patriot Act. At the end of October 2000, INS  issued regulationsbroadening INS� ability to detain people and monitoring attorney-clientcommunications of detainees. Additionally, on November 13, 2001, the Presidentestablished a military tribunal to prosecute suspected terrorists.

**SUMMARYOF TESTIMONY**

**PANELONE�COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS**

-  Mark    Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration StudiesNajeeba    Syeed-Miller, Executive Director, Asian-Pacific American Dispute Resolution    CenterTimothy    Edgar, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties UnionCharles    Kamasaki, Senior Vice President, Office of Research, Advocacy and    Legislation, National Council of La RazaJames    Zogby, President, Arab American Institute
**MarkKrikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies,** explained howthe United States Constitution, through the plenary power doctrine, grantsCongress the power to establish a uniform naturalization and immigration system.According to Mr. Krikorian, controlling immigration is essential to maintainingnational sovereignty. He stated, �In effect, foreign citizens, even if theyare here illegally, enjoy the human rights endowed them by God, but remain hereat our discretion, and the specifics of their due process rights are determinedby Congress.�[1]

Hediscussed how the nation�s efforts to strengthen control over immigration inlight of the September 11 terrorist attacks increase the focus on visaapplicants from Islamic countries or from those who are of Middle Easternorigin. However, it is difficult under current immigration laws for thegovernment to deny a visa application due to an applicant�s �beliefs,statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations wouldbe lawful within the United States.�[2]

Mr.Krikorian noted the historical use of �expedited exclusion� policies forfalse asylum claimants at airports. These policies provide immigrationsupervisors with the discretion to exclude an asylum claimant from beingadmitted to the United States if the claimant does not possess the appropriatedocuments. In addition, he predicted that INS will expedite implementing pilotprograms to track the whereabouts of foreign students in the United States.

**NajeebaSyeed-Miller, Executive Director, Asian-Pacific American Dispute ResolutionCenter,** discussed the situation facing the South Asian community in theUnited States. According to Ms. Syeed-Miller, some people mistakenly view SouthAsians as Arabs or as a group linked to the September 11 attacks. As a result,South Asians have often been the target of hate-based incidents since theterrorist attacks.

Ms.Syeed-Miller explained the history of national immigration policies and theirimpact on the numbers of Asian American immigrants in the United States. Sheemphasized the significant implications of the internment of 120,000 JapaneseAmericans in the 1940s, since no evidence of subversive involvement wasnecessary to trigger the government�s internment of American citizens.

Ms.Syeed-Miller maintained that there is a need to continue to build coalitionsbetween various groups that are often the victims of violent bias attacks.American universities offer viable opportunities for this cultural exchange.Because of their fears of reprisal attacks, however, many international studentsare leaving college campuses to return to their home countries. This trend willadversely affect our country because it limits the exposure of groups of peoplefrom outside our nation to our democratic values.

**TimothyEdgar, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union�Washington, D.C.office,** reviewed the proposed anti-terrorism legislation and its effect onthe civil rights and civil liberties of immigrants. Mr. Edgar outlined aneffectiveness test for anti-terrorism initiatives. He proposed that measuresused to address terrorism should provide maximum effectiveness, whilesimultaneously minimizing any adverse impact on civil rights and civilliberties. When applying this test to current anti-terrorism legislation, hesaid,

the    most troubling provisions are measures that would allow for detention of    immigrants on the basis of suspicion and lawful political associations for a    potentially indefinite period of time; expand the ability of the government    to conduct secret searches; minimize judicial supervision of federal    telephone and Internet surveillance by law enforcement authorities.[3]

Mr.Edgar also discussed several constitutional problems with the detention andremoval provisions of the proposed anti-terrorism legislation. These included:imprisoning individuals in INS facilities based solely on a certification fromthe U.S. attorney general and not on a substantive evidentiary requirement,detaining indefinitely immigrants who are not proven terrorists, and unfairlypunishing immigrants for associating with groups that the government views asterrorist organizations.

Pendinglegislation allows noncitizens who are in violation of immigration status to bedetained for a potentially indefinite period if their country of origin refusesto accept them. According to Mr. Edgar, this policy contradicts the U.S. SupremeCourt�s decision in *Zadvydas v. Davis*,[4]which warned that constitutional constraints occur when immigrants are detainedfor an indefinite period of time.

**CharlesKamasaki, Senior Vice President, Office of Research, Advocacy, and Legislation,National Council of LaRaza,**discussed the proposed anti-terrorismlegislation and suggested three principles to govern the debate overanti-terrorism policies. First, any anti-terrorism policy should be narrowlytailored to address actual security threats. Second, these policies should becarefully considered to prevent unintended results that adversely affect entirecommunities. Third, the September 11 attacks should not prevent our nation fromimplementing immigration and civil rights policies that are in the public�sinterest.

**JamesZogby, President, Arab American Institute,**informed the Commission that hatecrimes and instances of bias against Arab and Muslim Americans are not newproblems. He referred to the violent reaction toward Arab, Muslim, and LebaneseAmericans following the Iranian hostage crisis, the Gulf War, the Oklahoma Citybombing, and the explosion of a passenger airplane off Long Island. Moreover,after September 11, he said, �We had more than 300 reported [harassmentcomplaints and threats] to our organization and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.�[5]Because of the history of the FBI�s relationship with the Arab and MuslimAmerican communities, members of these communities, particularly recentimmigrants, are hesitant to report incidents of harassment, which includethreats, assaults, deaths, vandalism, profiling on airlines, termination ofemployment, and indiscriminate detentions and round-ups by the FBI.

Dr.Zogby also discussed the efforts of the administration and Congress to combathate crimes and violations of civil liberties of Arab and Muslim Americans inthe wake of the September 11 attacks.

**PANELTWO�LEGAL EXPERTS AND SCHOLARS**
-  David    Harris, Professor of Law and Values, University of Toledo College of LawKaren    Narasaki, Executive Director, National Asian Pacific American Legal    Consortium.Jeanne    Butterfield, Executive Director, American Immigration Lawyers AssociationElisa    Massimino, Director, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights Washington Office
**DavidHarris, Professor of Law and Values, University of Toledo College of Law,**focusedhis testimony on racial profiling. According to Professor Harris, the September11 attacks shifted the pubic debate of racial profiling, but compelling reasonsremain to caution against its use. He also alluded to the errors made by theUnited States when it reacted to past national security crises, such as theinternment of Japanese Americans, the Palmer raids, the McCarthy hearings, andthe recent controversies concerning national secrets, that had civil rightsimplications.

ProfessorHarris acknowledged that the terrorist attacks present a strong case justifyingthe practice of racial profiling because all the identified suspects belong to aparticular ethnic or religious group. Nevertheless, Professor Harris argued thatdata establish that racial profiling is an ineffective law enforcement tool.Data consistently show �across the board� that racial profiling is �notgood law enforcement,� he said.[6]

ProfessorHarris listed the following reasons to avoid racial profiling in the wake of theSeptember 11 terrorist attacks:
-  *Dilution    of Law Enforcement Resources.* Racial profiling will dilute finite law    enforcement resources that could have been expended to investigate more    people. Most suspects would hold no interest to law enforcement agencies but    for their appearance.*Damaged    Ability to Gather Intelligence from Affected Communities.* Racial    profiling treats members of an entire community as suspects and consequently    hinders law enforcement�s efforts to gather intelligence from the profiled    community. Unnecessarily treating people like suspects only alienates them    from law enforcement efforts.[7]
**KarenNarasaki, Executive Director, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium,**testifiedthat fear of Arabs and Muslims might lead America to betray its principles justas it did with the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II �forthe crime of looking like the enemy.�[8]She stated that the injured, deceased, and heroes from the September 11 attackscame in all creeds and colors. Anti-immigrant groups� exploitation of fears ofterrorism within the United States have begun �to push our country to closeour borders, and attacks began as Americans began to seek personal retribution.�[9]

Accordingto media reports, the FBI demanded that approximately 200 schools surrenderfinancial and academic records of foreign students, generally of Arab and MiddleEastern descent. Many schools are complying without even providing notice to thestudents that their records had been surrendered.

Membersof the immigrant community are most vulnerable to civil rights violationsbecause of their unfamiliarity with the law, the language, and with the agenciesthat offer services to assist and protect them. Limited English proficiency canbe a barrier to finding legal counsel, adequately communicating with counsel,and successfully navigating the justice system.

Ms.Narasaki stressed that Congress does not adequately fund the service side of theImmigration and Naturalization Service. She cited the backlog of citizenship andgreen card applications despite increases in fees charged to immigrants as anexample. Consequently, waiting periods for obtaining citizenship and green cardsare a �serious civil rights matter� due to the increased discriminatorynature of laws facing noncitizens.[10]Further, noncitizens are �subject to deportation for even the most minor oflegal infractions.�[11]Ms. Narasaki cautioned that Congress should not add responsibilities to INS �untilthey can clean up what the INS is already unable to accomplish.�[12]

Ms.Narasaki stated that language is a troubling barrier for immigrants in ourjustice system. Yet, �[w]hen initially pressed for its plan, pursuant toPresident Clinton�s executive order asking all the federal agencies to servicelimited-English-proficient Americans, the INS�of all agencies�claimed thatit did not come into contact with that many people who didn�t speak English.�[13]

She alsoexplained the �discriminatory nature� of immigration laws.[14]For example, INS� failure to process citizenship applications in a timelymanner raises civil rights issues because delays in citizen applications hold upthe eligibility of prospective citizens for government safety net programs. Ms.Narasaki gave the example that an immigrant survivor of the September 11 attackswho became disabled would not be eligible for Medicaid or other federalassistance.

She alsostated that the momentum to reform immigration systems was slowed by theSeptember 11 attacks. She added, �The problem with distinctions based uponcitizenship status is all too often that enforcement is based on racialprofiling.�[15]

**JeanneButterfield, Executive Director, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA),**reported that the anti-terrorism legislation originally proposed by theadministration would allow law enforcement officials to detain and deport peoplebased on mere suspicion without presentation of evidence or an opportunity for ahearing.[16]Additionally, the original definition of the terms �terrorist activity� and�terrorism� in the proposed legislation would expose innocent people tobroadened grounds of inadmissibility and deportability. Any new legislationshould foster the balance of security and law enforcement needs withconstitutional freedoms and civil liberties.

Ms.Butterfield cited three areas where her organization advocated improvements tothe pending legislation:
-  *Elimination    of No Hearing Deportations.*AILA helped to eliminate from the proposed    legislation the power to deport individuals based on suspicious terrorist    activity without a hearing. Further, the government could not detain someone    more than seven days without filing immigration charges.*Imposition    of a �Reasonable Grounds� Burden.* In the proposed legislation, the    attorney general must present �reasonable grounds� that the person falls    within the definition of a �terrorist� before imposing mandatory    detention. While AILA preferred a tougher standard, this standard was an    improvement over earlier versions of the proposed legislation.*Retention    of Habeas Review.* AILA also helped to preserve habeas review of the    attorney general�s decision to detain an individual based on �terrorist    activity.� Habeas review allows a detained individual the right to seek    judicial review of the legality of the detention by the attorney general.
Ms.Butterfield also expressed concern over 148 people �swept up� and detainedby the FBI for immigration violations without being charged.[17]These people �are in a never-never land where the rights that attached in acriminal justice system, to counsel, to probable cause . . . do not attach.�[18]

**ElisaMassimino, Director, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights�Washington, D.C.office,** said the Lawyers Committee issued a series of reports documentingthe adverse impact of asylum laws on the refugee community. Following thesereports, the Senate held a hearing in May 2001 to gather testimony about lengthydetentions, abusive treatment, and mistaken return of refugees. As a result,these hearings led to the introduction of the Refugee Protection Act six weeksbefore September 11. However, Ms. Massimino expressed concern over legislationintroduced since September 11, which would still allow people to be detained forlong periods without adequate access to the courts.

Ms.Massimino also reported that volunteer attorneys with the Lawyers Committee havenot been allowed to see clients who are being held in detention facilities. Shealso relayed an incident where an immigration judge lectured volunteer attorneysthat they should be prepared to prove not only that their clients are eligiblefor refugee protection but also that their clients are not terrorists.

Ms.Massimino concluded her remarks by relaying a story of an Afghan woman who waspersecuted by the Taliban. When the woman fled to America without officialtravel documents, U.S. authorities interrogated her at the airport, shackled herto a bench, told her to remove her clothes, and placed her in a prison uniform.She fainted from the shock of the treatment she received, and she subsequentlyremained in jail for three months. While this incident occurred three years ago,Ms. Massimino wondered �what would happen to her today if she came here [afterSeptember 11].�[19]

**PANELTHREE�GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS**
-  Owen    Cooper, General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization ServiceDavid    Venturella, Deputy Assistant for Detention & Removal, Immigration and    Naturalization ServiceJoseph    Langlois, Director of Asylum Division, Immigration and Naturalization    ServiceSamuel    Podberesky, Assistant General Counsel, Aviation Enforcement &    Proceedings, Department of TransportationFanny    Rivera, Assistant Administrator for Civil Rights, Federal Aviation    Administration, Department of Transportation
**OwenCooper, General Counsel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS),**statedthe INS is not only a law enforcement agency focusing on preventing improperentry into this country but also an agency that concentrates on helping peoplelegally enter the United States. INS is working to dispel the impression thatits institutional culture is attuned only to keeping people out of the UnitedStates. Mr. Cooper cited examples of the following policy developments: the INSissued guidelines that alleviate undue hardships resulting from the strictapplication of immigration laws; it proposed new regulations expanding thedefinition of �refugee� to include gender-based and domestic violenceclaims; it implemented a more open and accessible system for receiving claimsrelated to torture; it implemented the Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act,which allows eligible persons to adjust their immigration status without leavingthe country; and it implemented the Child Citizenship Act, which allows mostforeign-born children adopted by U.S. citizens to automatically acquire U.S.citizenship. After these remarks, Mr. Cooper read into the record a statement byINS Commissioner James W. Ziglar.

Mr.Cooper also discussed the 148 people detained by INS in connection with theterrorist attacks and their rights to legal representation. The number ofdetainees changes hourly, but all INS detainees are held for violations ofimmigration laws. He added that the FBI may be concurrently investigating thedetainee for possible involvement in terrorist activity. However, INS is onlyinvolved when a basis for an immigration violation exists. The 148 detainees arein custody in various places around the country in accordance to the normalprocess that applies to anyone detained for immigration violations.

Additionally,Mr. Cooper summarized the INS process for detention. As part of the normal INSprocedures for detention, INS provides detainees with a referral list of free orlow-cost legal services compiled by the Executive Office for Immigration Review.The law guarantees a right to counsel but not a right to government-fundedcounsel. He noted that INS, in the wake of September 11, issued a formalreminder to INS employees of the agency�s policy regarding the right tocounsel.

Whenasked if INS investigates newspaper accounts of INS personnel preventingattorneys from seeing their clients, **David Venturella, Deputy Assistant forDetention & Removal, INS,**affirmed that his division is investigatingcomplaints of noncompliance with detention standards. He also noted that theDepartment of Justice hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to conduct an independentreview of INS detention facilities and measure compliance with the guidelinesand standards of the INS, the Justice Department, and the American CorrectionAssociation.

Mr.Venturella said INS instituted a new program to provide all detainees with a �know-your-rights�presentation and supplied related pamphlets to detainees in different languages.He acknowledged that the new program is in its infancy and requires improvement.

Mr.Cooper also described the two separate systems for requesting asylum andadjudicating an asylum claim. When a person requests asylum, the applicant isfirst processed in the affirmative asylum program and meets with an INSadjudicator in a non-adversarial setting. If the applicant is not granted asylumand INS seeks deportation, the asylum claim is adjudicated in an adversarialproceeding before an immigration judge. In this second process, asylum seekersappear before an independent decisionmaker and possess a right to counsel. Theapplicants also may renew their asylum request in this proceeding. **JosephLanglois, Director of Asylum Division, INS,**added that his divisionmaintains statistics on asylum officers� approval rates and utilizes qualityassurances trainers to monitor the asylum process. According to Mr. Cooper,another component of the Justice Department maintains statistics on asylumgrants and denial rates of immigration judges.

Respondingto questions about who pays for legal counsel for the detainees, Mr. Cooper saidthat some detainees provide for their own legal representation and that manyorganizations offer low-cost or no-cost legal services. Mr. Venturella concededthat he believed only a small percentage of detainees have legal representation.

Mr.Langlois explained that INS only provides interpreters for asylum seekers whenasylum claims are adjudicated before an immigration law judge. Individualsparticipating in the affirmative asylum program are responsible for obtainingtheir own interpreters, but the government will provide an interpreter if thecase moves to adjudication before an immigration judge. Further, Mr. Langloisclarified earlier testimony concerning the right to legal counsel. A detaineedoes not have a statutory right to counsel in an expedited removal proceeding,but the detainee holds a right to a consultant, who may be a lawyer.

Mr.Venturella acknowledged that INS missed its congressional reporting requirementsand has not issued a report concerning the detention of asylum seekers since1999. He claimed that INS lacked sufficient data to analyze and produce usefulreports.

Respondingto a question about extra scrutiny for either naturalization or familyimmigration petitions, Mr. Cooper asserted INS naturalized 45,000 people sinceSeptember 11 and is continuing its attempts to process petitions promptly andefficiently. He acknowledged that enhanced security measures are causing backupsat ports of entry. INS is ensuring that ports of entry remain open 24 hours aday.

Mr.Cooper commented on how INS does not always have access to the types ofstatistics that would be useful for an agency trying to monitor INS programs.For example, quantifying the number of asylum seekers in detention is difficultbecause INS does not have full access to information on individuals processed inthe immigration courts. One commissioner suggested that INS contact the NationalAcademy of Sciences, which is developing its procedures to measure and detectdiscrimination, and that INS be proactive and implement its own set of testersfor discrimination by asylum officers or inspectors similar to tests used todetect housing discrimination. Mr. Venturella said his program is in the processof developing a strategic plan to evaluate detention and removal proceedings,ensuring they are humane and secure.

**SamuelPodberesky, Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement &Proceedings, Department of Transportation (DOT),** read a letter sent bySecretary of Transportation Norman Mineta. In light of the strengthened securityafter the terrorist attacks, DOT took steps to ensure full compliance with civilrights laws and investigate all discrimination complaints. Mr. Podberesky addedthat it is the primary focus of his office to monitor civil rights compliance bythe airlines and investigate security-related discrimination complaints.

**FannyRivera, Assistant Administrator for Civil Rights, Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT,**said FAA issued a news release in 1998 thatstated the FAA�s airline screening system would fully comply with civil rightslaws. On September 21, 2001, DOT cautioned airlines and airport enforcementauthorities not to target passengers based on their race. Ms. Riveraacknowledged that FAA implemented new security measures for airlines since theterrorist attacks, but airlines still remain responsible for implementing thesenew measures in a nondiscriminatory manner. FAA also encouraged airlines tocommunicate to their employees the illegality of discriminating against airlinepassengers based on race, ethnicity, or religion.

Respondingto a question about whether FAA utilizes guidelines or procedures permittingremoval of airline passengers based on ethnicity, national origin, or MiddleEastern or Muslim appearance, Mr. Podberesky stated no guidelines exist thatallow removal of an airline passenger based solely on race, nationality, orethnic origin. However, a federal statute permits removal of passengers ifairline personnel believe the passenger represents a safety or security risk tothe airplane. Nonetheless, the airline cannot remove the person solely based onrace under this statute. Mr. Podberesky added if an airline used race as afactor for removal, such action would raise serious concerns that would be dealtwith on a case-by-case basis.

Ms.Rivera stated her office only investigates complaints filed with her office anddoes not examine unfiled complaints reported in the media. Mr. Podberesky addedthat DOT occasionally contacts airlines regarding incidents documented in themedia that appear to be particularly egregious. However, it is difficult topursue enforcement action without an official complaint.

Mr.Podberesky noted that FAA has no authority to enforce civil rights laws againstairlines and explained that his office at DOT is charged with investigatingcivil rights complaints against airlines. Ms. Rivera�s office at FAAestablishes airplane security requirements.

Mr.Podberesky said that when determining what constitutes unlawful discrimination,he uses the �but for� test. Pilots must consider two statutes when removingpassengers from airplanes: (1) 49 U.S.C. � 449.02, which gives airlinesauthority to remove anybody from the airplane they believe is a safety risk tothe aircraft; and (2) 49 U.S.C. � 401.27, which prohibits airlines fromdiscriminating based on race, ethnic origin, or religion.

Accordingto Mr. Podberesky, DOT is aware of the Commission�s May 2001 Michigan AdvisoryCommittee report finding, among other things, the computer-assisted passengerscreening (CAPS) program discriminates by profiling people. However, hedisagreed with the findings in the report with respect to the CAPS program. Healso noted that the Justice Department reviewed the CAPS program in 1997 andfound it to be nondiscriminatory.

Mr.Podberesky explained that DOT maintains data on all complaints and keepsinvestigation files for each complaint.

** CONCLUSIONS**

**SUGGESTIONSFROM PANEL MEMBERS**

Panelmembers made several suggestions to the Commission, including the following:
-  The    Commission should examine the impact of the September 11 attacks on the    civil rights of the Arab American community.The    Commission should work with legal, civil rights, and private philanthropic    organizations to ensure access to legal counsel for those whose civil rights    have been violated.The    Commission should urge President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft to take    proactive interim steps to address racial profiling.The    Commission should dissuade the U.S. Department of Justice from pursuing    proposed collaborations between INS and local law enforcement agencies in    conducting immigration law enforcement operations.The    Commission should consider ways to improve accountability in law    enforcement.The    Commission should submit comments to federal agencies and other governmental    entities that may be issuing proposed regulations related to immigration law    enforcement, in order to ensure that civil rights concerns are adequately    addressed.The    federal government should examine broad policy questions to improve the    naturalization and visa process to deter terrorism and not affect commerce    and family reunification.Detention    proceedings should place the burden of proof on the federal government to    justify an individual�s detention.The    Commission should use its advisory committees in the states and the District    of Columbia to convene briefings on a local level to address issues that    disproportionately affect immigrant communities.The    Commission should provide guidance on how hate crimes should be    appropriately investigated. This may instill more confidence in members of    the public who wish to report hate crimes.The    Commission should systematically collect data regarding the interaction of    members of the immigrant community with INS.The    Commission should monitor whether INS is in compliance with its agreement    with the American Bar Association addressing detainee access to counsel.The    Commission should check the status of persons held by INS on immigration    charges and alleged to be involved with the terrorist attacks to see if    these individuals have access to counsel and family members who are able to    post bond.The    Commission should monitor INS� detention and parole of asylum seekers.The    Commission should monitor the INS publication of data on the detention of    asylum seekers.The    Commission should educate the American public about racial profiling and the    anti-terrorism legislation�s definition of a �terrorist� and a �terrorist    act.�The    Commission should monitor the implementation of the anti-terrorism    legislation, particularly with respect to detention of members of the    immigrant community. There is a concern that the powers granted to law    enforcement officials may leave room for excess and abuse.The    Commission should monitor the compliance of any reporting requirements    included in the anti-terrorism legislation.

[1]    Mark Krikorian, statement before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,    briefing, Washington, D.C., Oct. 12, 2001, transcript, p. 64 (hereafter    cited as Briefing Transcript).

[2]    Ibid., p. 65.

[3]    Timothy Edgar, Briefing Transcript, p. 79.

[4]    121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001).

[5]    James J. Zogby, Briefing Transcript, p. 91.

[6]    David A. Harris, Briefing Transcript, p. 121.

[7]    Ibid., pp. 121�22.

[8]    Karen K. Narasaki, Briefing Transcript, p. 138. 

[9]    Ibid., p. 136. 

[10]    Ibid., p. 134. 

[11]    Ibid., p. 135. 

[12]    Ibid., pp. 134 �35.

[13]    Ibid., p. 140. 

[14]    Ibid., p. 135. 

[15]    Ibid. 

[16]    Jeanne A. Butterfield, Briefing Transcript, p. 123. At the time of the    briefing, no anti-terrorism legislation was passed in Congress. President    George W. Bush signed Public Law No. 107-56, the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act,    into law on October 26, 2001. Eric Krol, �New law to lessen limits for    FBI; Local experts say it will keep agents ahead of terrorists,� *The**Chicago    Daily Herald*, Oct. 27, 2001, p. 1.

[17]    Jeanne A. Butterfield, Briefing Transcript, p. 127. 

[18]    Ibid.

[19]    Elisa C. Massimino, Briefing Transcript, p. 132.