JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Friday, September 26, 2008

Second Circuit upholds retired non-immigration registration system
Leslie Schulman at 6:02 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] on Wednesday upheld [opinion, PDF] as constitutional a former National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) [DOJ backgrounder] program which required non-immigrant adult males from 25 predominantly Muslim nations and North Korea to register with immigration authorities and re-register annually or face deportation. Four men who have since been deported filed suit in 2006 arguing that Attorney General John Ashcroft [official profile] lacked statutory authority to pass such a measure, and claiming also that their constitutional rights had been violated because they were deported "based on their religion, ethnicity, gender, and race." The court disagreed, holding:

[I]mmigration regulation differs fundamentally from the legal contexts relied upon because classifications on the basis of nationality are frequently unavoidable in immigration matters . . . Indeed, the very concept of 'alien' is a nationality-based classification . . . [T]here is no tension whatsoever between Congress passing specific laws targeting terrorism and the Attorney General using broad powers granted under existing statutes toward the same end.

There was a rational national security basis for the Program. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 were facilitated by the lax enforcement of immigration laws. The Program was designed to monitor more closely aliens from certain countries selected on the basis of national security criteria. The individual subject to special registration under the Program were neither citizens nor even lawful permanent residents. They were asked to provide information regarding their immigration status and other matters relevant to national security . . . In sum, . . . [we conclude] that the Program does not violate Equal Protection guarantees.
AP has more.

The program, which was implemented in 2002 following the 9/11 attacks [JURIST news archive] and later moved under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [official website] after its implementation in 2003, was criticized by some who said that the requirements were poorly publicized, that it created "deportation traps" and alienated law-abiding visitors while doing little to enhance national security. DHS terminated the program [JURIST report] in November 2003, but the registration database still exists.





Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 Rights groups challenge NYPD over Muslim surveillance
11:23 AM ET, June 19

 US government releases names of indefinite Guantanamo detainees
10:16 AM ET, June 19

 UN rights chief urges Turkish government, protesters to defuse tensions
9:21 AM ET, June 19

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

Is Egypt's Stance on the Blue Nile Dam Legally Justified?
DOMESTIC
Zeray Yihdego
University of Aberdeen School of Law

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org