Upon arrival at San Francisco International Airport, Abu Fayad was denied entry into the
United States when customs agents found material, including al Jazeera news stories and a 9/11 conspiracy theory video, downloaded on his laptop. The government never claimed that
Abu Fayad had taken any action toward terrorist or criminal activity, but instead argued that
he shouldn't be allowed within the United States because he is "likely to engage in terrorist
activity" at some point in the future. This, despite Abu Fayad's repeated denunciations of
terrorism. But the government's "expert" pointed to factors like his university education in
computer science and clean criminal record as what made him an "exceptionally attractive
target for recruitment" by Hamas, the militant group and political party that currently
governs the Gaza Strip, where Abu Fayad grew up. These factors would likely subject any
young Palestinian professional from Gaza to detention and deportation when entering the
United States.

The government also pointed to Abu Fayad acquiring a green card as a reason to deny him
entry. A green card, the government argued, would make him all the more alluring for
terrorist recruiters. Given the way Muslim religious practice and political opinions critical of
U.S. foreign policy have become markers for suspicion of terrorist activity, this logic creates
a dangerous precedent for denying Muslims legal immigration status.

In 1984, George Orwell had Big Brother, thoughtcrime, newspeak and memory hole. The Tom
Cruise flick Minority Report had Precrime, a specialized police force that apprehended
individuals before the government suspected any criminal activity. Now more than ever,
with an expansive set of laws and policies encouraging mass surveillance, information-
sharing and unchecked enforcement, 1984 and Minority Report are less reminders of
what could be, and more markers of where we are. For Muslim, Arab and South Asian
communities, the results have been devastating.

Abu Fayad is only one of many Muslim immigrants since 9/11 who have been arrested,
detained, deported and denied visas, green cards and citizenship based on similarly
dangerous logic, false and unsubstantiated terrorism-related allegations. Last week, the
Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at NYU School of Law and the
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) released a Briefing Paper,
entitled Under the Radar: Muslims Deported, Detained, and Denied on Unsubstantiated Terrorism
Allegations, demonstrating how the U.S. government has abused the immigration legal system
in a way that discriminates against Muslim immigrants and violates international human
rights law.

Since 9/11, the federal government has relied heavily on immigration law and policy to
prosecute the so-called "War on Terror." With fewer checks and balances, it is much easier
to arrest, detain and investigate an individual under immigration law than criminal law.
Unlike the criminal legal system, in immigration court, an individual is not guaranteed an
attorney, a right to a speedy trial in front of a jury of his peers or the necessity to prove guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt in front of an independent judiciary.

While these lesser substantive and procedural protections have led to increased detentions
and deportations nationwide, devastating immigrant communities from all racial, ethnic and
religious backgrounds, they have also allowed federal officials to undertake several initiatives
that have targeted Muslim immigrants in the name of national security. Under the guise
of executing the nation's immigration laws, Muslim non-citizens have been subjected to
large-scale, secret, and often lengthy preventive detention; exclusion based solely on their
political views; guilt by association; unilateral detention by the executive branch; and nation-
wide national security policies that have amounted to little more than wide-scale racial
profiling, such as the National Security Entry Exit Registration System special registration
policy. Although NSEERS was recently suspended, the program led to the detention and
deportation of almost 14,000 men, and the ongoing devastation of thousands of Muslim
families.

The government continues to use subtler -- though no less abusive -- practices, drawing
on the vulnerability of immigrant status in the United States. Take Zuhair Mahd, a blind
adaptive technologies specialist, for example. He applied for citizenship in 2004, and
successfully completed his interview shortly thereafter. But then, while his naturalization
application languished for years due to the mysterious Federal Bureau of Investigation name
check process, the FBI visited him on multiple occasions. The FBI interrogated Mahd about
his immigration status, political views and more. They repeatedly requested that he work
for the FBI as an informant. On one occasion, the FBI explicitly offered to help Mahd with
his naturalization application if he agreed to cooperate. Mahd consistently refused. And
in 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his naturalization application.
Eventually, after five years and a pro se lawsuit, USCIS reversed its decision and in 2009
Mahd was sworn in as a U.S. citizen.

Mahd's is only one of many cases in which the FBI has tried to take advantage of the
vulnerable immigration status of Muslim non-citizens to coerce them into becoming
informants. This practice is particularly troubling considering how the FBI has expanded its
use of informants to not only gather information on Muslim communities, but also attempt
to entrap Muslims in an effort to increase terrorism convictions nationwide.

When overbroad counterterrorism policies manifest in the immigration context -- where
there is a void of checks and balances and a fundamental lack of transparency -- there is all
the more potential for government abuse. The overall effect of the practices identified in
our Briefing Paper is that religious, cultural and political affiliations and lawful activities
of Muslims are being construed as dangerous terrorism-related factors to justify detention,
deportation and denial of immigration benefits. The government seems to be targeting
Muslim immigrants not for any particular acts, but on the basis of unsubstantiated innuendo
based largely on their religious and ethnic identities, political views, employment histories

and ties to their home countries.

The practices raise serious human rights concerns. The United States is failing to uphold
its international human rights obligations to guarantee the rights to due process; liberty and
security of person; freedom of religion; freedom of expression and opinion; and the right
to privacy and family. The past ten years have unfortunately been marked by vulnerability
and discrimination against Muslim, Arab and South Asian communities in the United States.
With the death of Osama bin Laden, let's hope that the United States can enter a new era
where Muslim immigrants are treated with the fairness and dignity that is owed to all.

Amna Akbar is the Senior Research Scholar & Advocacy Fellow at the Center for Human Rights and
Global Justice at NYU School of Law. Sameer Ahmed is a Skadden Fellow and Attorney at the Asian
American Legal Defense and Education Fund. You can read the CHRGJ/AALDEF Briefing Paper at
Under the Radar: Muslims Deported, Detained, and Denied on Unsubstantiated Terrorism Allegations.