RIDGE: ASYLUM SEEKERS FACE LONG DETENTIONS. . .

but now it's because of the threat of terrorism. The White House announced DHS's "Operation Freedom Shield" yesterday as the domestic component of the war on Iraq. Read the press release here. One of the elements of "Operation Freedom Shield" that people should find troubling is announced in the following paragraph:

Asylum Modifications

Asylum Detainees - Asylum applicants from nations where al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda sympathizers, and other terrorist groups are known to have operated will be detained for the duration of their processing period. This reasonable and prudent temporary action allows authorities to maintain contact with asylum seekers while we determine the validity of their claim. DHS and the Department of State will coordinate exceptions to this policy.

Three things are strange about this announcement. First of all, many asylum seekers are already subject to long detention periods in the U.S. while their cases are being processed, as Amnesty International has been noting for a while (see also here). A backlog of asylum cases already exists, and people are already being detained while their cases are being processes, so what's new here? The only thing that seems to be new is the terrorism justification, and perhaps the announcement of a flat rule. Thus, it seems like this policy is announced as a way for the (ex-)INS to cover their butts and provide a post hoc justification for something they've already received some heat for. And one more question presents itself: how can an existing policy be defended as a new program that is "temporary"? Does Ridge mean that we will "temporarily" continue this policy that we've already been criticized for having? I must not be understanding something big here.

Secondly, there is no mention of numbers, which is not surprising in and of itself, but one is still left wondering how many people this policy will affect. I found a few indications, but would love to see newer numbers if anyone has them: According to the U.S. Committee on Refugees, Preliminary data for 2000 showed a backlog of 329,115 asylum cases, with 48,054 new cases filed that year. Several thousand people are likely to be affected by this policy -- whatever the policy actually is, and depending on which countries are on the list. For an overview of data on asylum seekers broken down by country of origin, see the USCR data here, and the official refugee and asylum report from the U.S. government for 2001, here (PDF file). The index page for gov't stats on asylum seekers is here.

Thirdly, what's the reasoning here? We're told by DHS that it's a "reasonable and prudent" policy as well as being temporary. I've already cast doubt on the adjective "temporary." Eric Muller wonders about the other adjectives. If the countries affected are those that fall under the "special registration procedures," which I'm going to assume here, what justifies their detention? Why is it reasonable to assume, as this announcement seems to indicate, that all asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Eritrea, Lebanon, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Pakistan Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, or Kuwait need to be kept under lock and key while their asylum applications are processed?