Arab and Muslim Discrimination in the US

[MrsAmera 41]

At the request of a fellow VJ member I am posting this research paper I recently wrote. It is long but I hope that some of you find it interesting and thought provoking. Most of the information was gathered by research however some of my own opinions may be found at the beginning and end.....

During World War Two, the American public was consumed with fear towards Japan and went so far as to detain Japanese-Americans in an attempt to segregate and watch them. After World War Two, the media continually covered events that were occurring involving the USSR and made little effort to separate the average Soviet citizen from those who were anti-Western. With the fall of communism, the Arab-Muslim enemy emerged. The fear directed towards Arabs and Muslims reached its peak after the September 11th 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, but negativity towards this group of people existed well before the attacks, and perhaps was even a contributing factor for the attacks. Arabic speaking people are not new to the United States. They have been here for over one hundred years and have continually faced discrimination, bigotry, legal difficulties and stereotyping. However, after September 11th, it seems the aggression towards Arab and Muslim Americans hit an all time high.

In the months that followed, Congress and President George W. Bush passed a series of legislation, including the infamous USA Patriot Act that have altered and possibly violated the civil rights of Arab and Muslim Americans. It is critical for Americans to understand and address the violations that are occurring in order to correct those wrongs. By analyzing the history of the Arab and Muslim populations in the United States from their first immigration to present it will be evident that this group has continually been targeted and excluded from full participation and privelage in the United States. The formation of this attitude in the American public has been developed most significantly from the mass media. This paper will look at various instances in television, movies, and newspapers where Arabs and Muslims have been vilified and how this leads to prejudice and bias as well as the effects this prejudice has, such as the creation of unfair laws and verbal and physical assault against people. It will also point out how enacted legislation creates barriers for Arab and Muslim Americans such as defamation of character, indefinite illegal detention, and violation of basic Constitutional provisions such as illegal search and seizure and limitations on free speech.

Research on this topic is rarely un-biased. Generally there is full support for one side of the argument or for the other. I have attempted to balance the argument by reading and analyzing material from both sides of the spectrum. It is through this research that I have made the conclusion that Arab and Muslim civil rights in the United States have been and are currently being violated. The wealth of material and arguments available make a complete synthesis impossible within the scope of this project. I however have chosen those facts I feel most compelling and pertinent to make a solid argument for my assumption.

According to a Washington Times article, the number of Muslims in the United States today is between four and six million people. The larger number would mean there are more Muslims in the United States than Jews, and would make Muslims the largest religious minority in the country. (Washington Times) In an article for the CQ Researcher, Mary H. Cooper gives an overview of Islam and its role in America. Islam is said to be the fastest growing religion in the United States. This she argues is due to increased immigration from Islamic countries but also from conversions of native born Americans. There are approximately 1,100 mosques in the US and the majority Muslim populations live in New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago and Washington D.C. but are also scattered throughout the country. (Cooper 2) Muslims represent a different, almost exotic religion that many American do not understand. In Islam there is no rabbi or priest, and worshipers are expected to follow five simple tenants of the faith: the belief that Allah is God, prayer five times a day, zakat or money offered to the poor, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan, and hajj the pilgrimage to Mecca made at least once in a Muslim’s lifetime provided it is financially possible. Male and female Muslims are expected to dress modestly, but very often the stigma falls to women who wear a head scarf or veil. Wearing a scarf is not required of women, but some choose to do so. Joshua Salam civil rights coordinator for the Council on American-Islamic Relations said that, "Because they wear the hijab, Muslim women are the most visible," (Women’s News).

In her article, “The Early Arab Immigrant Experience,” Dr. Alixa Naff details the immigration of Arabs to the United States. She points out that the first Arabic speaking people immigrated to the United States from the Ottoman province of Syria between 1875 and 1900. (Naff 23) One important idea she talks about is the fact that most Arabs in the United States are not Muslim and this has been the case since the first immigration wave began. Today only 23% of Arabs are Muslim (Sunni, Shi’ite, and Druze), the majority are Christian and a small minority are Jewish. Another author, Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad explains the role of Arabs in the Muslim community. They also make up the minority of members of the Muslim community. Muslims constitute 25% of all American Muslims, while 33% are South Asians and 30% African American. (Haddad 2-3) Data on the first Muslims to enter the United States, shows that they were black slaves brought from Africa but were forced to convert to Christianity soon after their arrival. Many of the new American converts are African American and claim that they are just returning to their ancestors religion. (Cooper 6) Most of the first immigrants who came to the United States were classified as originating from “Turkey in Asia”. In 1924 the Johnson-Reed or National Origin Act was passed by Congress. This act was intended to freeze the ethnic distribution in the United States at the time and to slow down immigration from Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe. Senator Reed of Pennsylvania best sums up his opinion as well as the general populations feeling towards immigrants of the time in his speech to Congress on April 8, 1924 in support of the passage of this law.

What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves. (Cong. Rec. April 8, 1924; p. 5922)

This act limited the number of Syrian immigrants to 100 annually and excluded Asians. The immigrants resented this title for two reasons. First, they were escaping the oppressive Ottoman Turks and secondly, the distinction of being Asian eliminated any hopes of attaining citizenship. Previously, in 1917 Congress passed the Asiatic Barred Zone Act that prevented immigration to the US from mostly Asian countries. Early census information on race was in no way scientific. According to Helen Hateb Samhan’s chapter, “Not Quite White: Race Classification and the Arab American Experience” in Arabs in America: Building a New Future she explains race in the US Census. “Race definitions could include subgroups of immigrants who were in some way distinguishable from the native-born majority. Mexicans, Jews, Hindus and even Syrians were among the national and religious origin peoples referred to as racial groups.” Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) added the subcategory ‘Syrians’ in 1899 and this became the designation of choice for most incoming immigrants, as it excluded them from the distinction of being Asian. (Haddad 4)

Arab immigrants came to the United States in two major waves, before World War II and after World War II. The first wave brought mostly unsophisticated farmers or artisans. They were relatively poor, had little education. Their goal was to earn money as quickly as possible and return home. The second wave was very different. They were mostly well educated, bilingual, politicized and nationalistic. They were from independent Arab nations and were the first to identify themselves as Arabs. (Naff 23-24) Most of the first wave of immigrants assimilated quickly. They generally worked as peddlers and salesmen and as they extended into the heart of the United States and made contact with established Americans they began to settle in, learn English and adopt the customs of the United States. (Haddad 4) The climate towards aliens at the time, including Arabs was at best, cold. Author Michael Suleiman in “Arab-Americans and the Political Process” says that Anglo-Americans viewed Arab immigrants as “an inconvenience at best and a threat to the purity of the white race and US moral and public order” (Suleiman 40). Arabs tried to interact as little as possible with European Americans in order to avoid embarrassing or threatening situations. Members of the community were constantly reminded that they were guests and should not irritate their hosts. (Suleiman 41) Dr. Alicia J. Campi in an article for The American Immigration Law Foundation details the creation of the McCarren-Walter Act. In 1952 President Lyndon B. Johnson replaced the Johnson-Reed Act with the McCarren-Walter Act. This law liberalized immigration laws and created the basis of our current system. The new law removed blanket exclusions of Asians and allowed their naturalization, it was still biased towards Europeans. By 1965 the quota system was dismantled and family and employment-based visas were established. The ideological reasons for exclusion and deportation were also removed save for “communists.” According to Cooper, at the same time an Islamic revival was occurring in the Middle East and was attracting more people to Islam. The immigrants that came to the United States after this time were more likely to include observant Muslims. (Cooper 9) As the United States began to re-open her doors the sentiment towards Arabs was complicated by events in the world. The American medias’ coverage of such events helped create anti-Arab bias in the general population.

The Arab-Israeli War started in 1967 and most Arabs identified themselves as such but had virtually assimilated into mainstream American life. Elaine Hagopin in her article “Minority Rights in a Nation-State: The Nixon Administration’s Campaign against Arab Americans,” expresses that during the Arab-Israeli war in the American media, Arabs (Palestinians) were portrayed as anti-Semetic, evil and intent on destroying the Jewish people. Palestinians were shown as aggravated terrorists with illegitimate demands on their homeland. (Hagopin 106)

One of the major challenges Arabs in the United States must deal with is the powerful and overwhelming Jewish/Israeli lobby. In an attempt to counter this group, and allow their side to be heard Arabs finally banded together in 1967 to create the first Arab-American organization, the Association of Arab-American University Graduates. The opportunity they had to affect changes in policy were limited because the hostility towards Arabs and Arabism at the time was high. Most public leaders viewed the Arab-Israeli one-sided, the side supporting Israel. So the group aimed to provide accurate information about the Arab world and Arabs in the United States to the general public. They also tried to educate Arab countries and people about the problem as well as US policies and political processes. (Suleiman 47) By 1972 the National Association of Arab Americans was formed as a political lobby. In 1980 the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee was formed as a counter to the Anti Defamation League, a Zionist organization, in order to prevent slander and attack counterclaims. The Arab American Institute was brought into existence in 1985 to encourage Arab Americans to participate in the US political arena. (Suleiman 48) Since 1985 many more Arab and Muslim organizations have been founded for a variety of purposes. James Zogby president of the Arab American Institute in Washington D.C. discusses his experiences a young Arab leader in the 1970’s in his article, “Alarm Bells in America as Arab Americans Face Increased Deomonization.” In 1970 he was running the Palestinian Human Rights Campaign when Jewish organizations targeted him for abuse and attack. The organization was called “terrorist supporters,” even though they condemned the use of violence against all civilians. The group also had the support of African-American and Christian leaders, but they were still referred to as a “terror-front group” and “an arm of Palestinian propaganda.” The group was routinely harassed at speaking engagements as well as excluded from political coalitions. The culmination of events occurred in the 1980’s when the PHRC office in Washington DC was fire-bombed. (Zogby) These incidents are only the tip of the iceberg.

Following the Arab-Israeli war the Nixon administration issued a directive in 1972 in response to the Munich Olympics event, called “Operation Boulder”. Under this directive law enforcement had a blanket authorization to investigate people of Arabic-speaking origin both citizens and non-citizens to determine if they had ties to terrorist activities that were related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. (Hagopin 100-101) Agents would go the homes of Arab-Americans generally in the early morning and tell people that they had information that they were members of Fatah, the largest Palestinian resistance organization. The agents never presented any charges to the people they interviewed. Their tactics went beyond simple interviewing as well.

The United States government sought the help of the Israeli government and appropriated the Israeli designation of “Arabs as terrorists.” The FBI began to compile dossiers on organizations and on members of the community, by tapping their telephones and gathering information about their political ideas, the journals to which they subscribed and their circle of friends. It featured intimidation by FBI agents, the restriction of movement by Arabs in the United States, and the deportation of hundreds on technical irregularities. Immigration from the Arab World was restricted. ..The massive scrutiny did not result in identifying any anti-American activities. (Haddad 21)

By 1986 through the Freedom of Information Act, the Arab community learned that the government was considering the use of military compounds in the southern United States as internment camps for Arabs and Iranians. Understandably the Arab community was upset by this directive. This case provided the first solid example of the compromising of constitutional rights of Arab-Americans. It also encouraged hatred of the community by larger society. (Hagopin 102) How the American public came to accept such a blatant violation of the constitutional rights of American citizens is a more difficult question. The role of mass media and their portrayal of Arabs may be the strongest link to understanding this question.

In her article for Arab Studies Quarterly, Susan Akram cites some of the reasons she believes to have contributed to the demonization of Arabs and Muslims.

….traced to deliberate mythmaking by film and media, stereotyping as part of conscious strategy of ‘expert’ and polemicists on the Middle East, the selling of a foreign policy agenda by the US government officials and groups seeking to affect that agenda, and a public susceptible to images identifying the unwelcome ‘other’ in our midst. (Akram)

The susceptibility of the American public may be attributed to their lack of understanding of Islam. They see a distorted view of the religion often as aggressive, violent and fanatical. They also fail to see the diversity in the Arab and Muslim population, for example not all Arabs and Muslim and not all Muslims are Arab. Muslims are also poorly represented in public life. There are no governors, members of Congress or mayors of large American cities that are Muslim. With no one in power to stand up for their rights they fall more vulnerable to discrimination and stereotyping. (Cooper 4) Many of these problems could be resolved or at least helped if there was more education to Americans about their values or if they played a bigger role in American politics. Even with these changes, the media still remains one of the biggest hurdles to cross as to how American perceive Arabs and Muslims.

Racism towards Arabs is instilled in mainstream cultural and political institutions. This kind of racism is tolerated by mainstream society as it is not seen as violent or outright racism. These institutions include news, media, literature, and Hollywood. (Abraham 159-160) Mohammad Majid, assistant director of the Islamic Center in Washington D.C. gives a very potent example of this. He said that if a Muslim commits a crime, the media says a Muslim did it. But if a Christian or a Jew commits a crime they do not identify the criminal by his religion. The media also portrays events as if Islam and Muslims condone the events that are taking place or support them. In movies and television where Muslims appear, if they appear at all, they are often the villian. For example, in Disney’s Aladdin there is a scene where a woman steals an apple for her hungry child, she is then accosted by a guard and he threatens to cut off her hand. This would never happen under Islamic law. (Cooper 4) Unfortunately Aladdin is not just an isolated example. In his book Reel Bad Arabs, Jack Shaheen reviewed over 900 movies, from the beginning of the movie industry until the current time, the majority of which distort the view of Arabs or Muslims. Of these 900 he decided only twelve had a positive depiction of Arabs or Muslims. He recommends fifty-one as offering a balanced view and condemns sixty-four as the worst possible depiction. He also chronicles the epithets that most often appear in reference to Arabs in film. Some of these include; Arab-wrangler, Arabian Gestapo, Aryab, bandits, barbarians, brown devils, butchers, cheap-suited camel jockey, devil worshippers, filthy animal, filthy Arab, filthy butcher, filthy swine, goat, Gucci terrorist, half-breed dog, monkeys, raghead, sand fleas, son of a ######, son of a camel, dog, flea bitten camel, thief, #######, stateless savages, stinky fellow, towel head, walking bed sheets, and many, many more. (Shaheen 552-553) Plato said that those who tell stories also rule society. These stories shape our memories, thoughts and beliefs. In particular this kind of depiction is very harmful in the shaping of children’s ideals and notions towards other people.

In a 1967 conducted by Wallace Lambert and Otto Klineberg and funded in part by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission, 3,300 children, at three age levels from eleven parts of the world were interviewed to determine their views of foreign people. The countries included were the United States, South African Bantu children, Brazil, English-Canada, French-Canada , France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Lebanon and Turkey. (Lambert 11) The children from all countries except Brazil and Japan most often nominated Chinese and Africans as the most dissimilar to themselves. Their reasons were that these people were aggressive, bad, uncultured, unintelligent, poor and dirty. (Lambert 124-126). Only four groups made mention to specific facts that they knew about the people they considered unattractive. But when describing people they found attractive they used many facts. When asked what the major source of information for their feelings was the number one source was television and movies. The answers did vary with age, as younger children were mostly influenced by their parents and older children more heavily by television, movies and to a lesser extent school courses and textbooks. Personal contact with people of another ethnicity or culture was a very minor source of information. (Lambert 35-83) This study shows that prejudices do exist in children from a very young age. In another study on racial prejudice in a more contemporary time-frame show the same results. Afua Ahrin and Bruce A. Thyer believe that prejudice can be established in even pre-verbal children through classical conditioning. Consistently seeing a frightening image, for example of an Arab man on television, can create a stimuli so that when the situation occurs in real-life, creates a response of fear and avoidance in young children. For example in a survey done in Israel a photograph of a male figure is shown to a two and a half year old. When the man was verbally identified as an Arab, the child rated the photograph lower than when the photo was not labeled. (Arhin and Thyer 6) Even as children grow, and they have the intellectual capacity to know similar-appearing people can be very different, it is hard to get rid of the aversive feelings when encountering the new person similar in appearance as the other individual with which a frightening experience had occurred. (Arhin and Thyer 7) Even though many people disregard the role of the media in creating an image and attitude in people, these studies show that they create an impression. Aside from just avoidance and fear of people who are different there are definite costs to prejudice.

Gerhart Saenger details what other problems arise from prejudice and segregation. Discrimination can lead to limits on the buying power of minorities and thus indirectly relate to the standard of living of the entire population. When people are discriminated against, it could mean they do not have employment, they then consume less and pay fewer taxes and depend more heavily on social services. The stigma of inferiority that goes along with being the minority in a prejudicial society can also lead someone who has normal aspirations towards criminal activity more than other members of a society might be inclined. Prejudice also creates rifts in communication between groups and leads to a downward spiral of violence and hatred. To prove this one need only to look at Hitler’s Germany. He played on the existing political, social and economic tensions between the majority and minority groups to exploit and undermine his enemies. Lastly Saenger cites perhaps the most predominant reason for the behavior of the American public today. When there is large scale discrimination in a society such as the United States, which believes in freedom and equality, the population may feel guilty. This guilt must then be rationalized. Some common rationalizations are that the other group is inferior, they could not benefit from better standards and that they are just different than us. (Saenger 22-24) When this attitude remains unchecked the situation does not improve. In 1942 100,000 Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps. Historically, African Americans were denied civil rights, robbed of property and lynched. American Indians were displaced and slaughtered and six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. (Shaheen 4) Now we stand in the middle of a new wave of prejudicial treatment. We must then assess where the American public stands in their views of American Arabs and Muslims.

Three sets of polls will be considered to see where Americans attitudes and beliefs lie in regards to Arab and Muslim Americans. The fist poll occurred in 1989 by the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee. The second poll was conducted by Cornell University in 2004. And the last poll was done by the Washington Post-ABC News in 2006.

The ADC poll showed that 70% of US citizens were biased against Arabs and Arab Americans. Only 4% said that there was a media bias in favor of Arabs and 87% believed that the media was guilty of providing a negative image of Arabs. (Suleiman 52) The Cornell study was much more in depth. The title of their survey was “Restriction on Civil Liberties, Views of Islam and Muslim Americans.” They conducted interviews with 715 US citizens. 27% of respondants felt that Islam and Christianity shared similar values. 47% believed that Islam encourages violence more than other religions and 44% believed that at least one form of restriction should be placed on Muslim Americans civil liberties. When asked if the government should be able to detain terror suspects indefinitely 63% believed it should be allowed. The table below shows attitudes towards personal activities that should be limited or curtailed by the American government. The data sets are interesting because of the events of September 11, 2001. This event changed most Americans perceptions of Arabs and Islam however only 3 of the 8 questions had a higher percentage in 2004 than in 2000.

Restriction on Civil Liberties, Views of Islam and Muslim Americans

% in 2004 % in 2000

Government should be able to monitor internet 47% 41%

…indefinitely detain terrorists 63% 57%

…oulaw some un-American activities 36% 40%

Government sometimes lie 48% 57%

Media should not cover protests 33% 30%

…report criticism 31% 31%

Individuals should be allowed to protest 60% 62%

…should be allowed to criticize government 63% 65%

Another set of questions asked in the Cornell study was in regards to people’s attitudes towards Muslims. 27% of people felt that all Muslims should be required to register with the federal government. 26% believe mosques should be closely monitored by law enforcement. Asked whether the US government should profile citizens as potential threats based on Middle Eastern heritage or being Muslim 22% replied yes. 29% agreed that Muslim civic or volunteer organizations should be infiltrated by undercover law enforcement to watch their actions and where money that was raised was being sent. A total of 48% of respondents did not agree with any of the above statements. The last number is a little surprising. Even though an extreme amount of negativity exists in the United States towards Muslims and Arabs it appears that majority of Americans do not support violating the civil rights of Muslims and Arabs. (Cornell) The actions of the American government however, do not seem to be in line with the feelings of the general public. Especially following September 11, 2001 the national government has put into place legislation and practices that do single out and target Arabs and Muslims solely because of their ethnic or religious affiliation.

The 2006 interviewed 1,000 randomly selected Americans during March 2-5, 2006. The poll found 46% of Americans have a negative view of Islam, up 7% from the months after 9/11. Conservative and liberal experts cite that these attitudes may be fueled by political statements and media reports that focus only on the actions of Muslim extremists. 33% of Americans also believe Islam creates more violence against non-Muslims. One in four Americans also admitted to harboring prejudice against Arabs and Muslims. However, Americans who said they understood Islam saw the religion as peaceful and respectful, but were not less likely to say it harbors extremists nor were they less prejudiced towards Muslims. The Post interviewed Juan Cole, professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan. He said Americans, “have been given the message to responds this way by the American elite, mass media and by select special interests.” (Washington Post). This shows another example where the media has influenced the public’s view of Arabs and Muslims. However, the case against Arab and Muslim Americans does not stop at dislike. It extends to legislation and physical and verbal attacks.

In 1996 the Anti-terrorism Bill was passed into law. The inception of this law makes it a federal crime for anyone in the United States, citizen or immigrant, to provide lawful humanitarian aid to any group designated by the Secretary of State as a terrorist organization. However at the time there was no formally designated list of what those groups are. (Shehadeh –interview) The government claimed that any help was supporting terrorist activities because it was freeing up resources that could then be used for terrorist purposes. (Shehadeh) One of the important legal cases that arose with this legislation is known as the “LA-8” case.

In 1987 deportation orders were issued for 8 people; Bashar Amer, Aiad Barakat, Julie Mungai, Amjad Obeid, Ayman Obeid, Naim Sharif, Khader Hamide, and Michel Shehadeh. They all belonged to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine that was characterized as a terrorist/communist organization. They were charged under the McCarren-Walter Act (since repealed) as being aliens who advocated world communism, a deportable reason under the Act. They were also arrested for immigration status violations. After the McCarren-Walter Act was repealed, they remained to be held on immigration charges. The defendants filed a suit that eventually worked its way to the Supreme Court and they were represented by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Their suit claimed that they were targeted for deportation because of their affiliation with a politically unpopular group and that this violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They argued that the Immigration and Naturalization Service did not seek to deport other non-citizens who supported organizations such as the Nicaraguan contras, Afghani mujaideen, anti-Castro Cubans, NENAMO in Mozambique. Any members of these groups would qualify as terrorists under immigration law. (Cole – interview) The Supreme Court however rejected their claim on the basis that an unlawful alien has no constitutional right to claim violation of rights as a defense against deportation. (Reno vs. AAD) The latest and possibly most damaging piece of legislation is the USA PATRIOT Act.

The purpose of the law as defined in the text is; to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. (H.R. 3162) In 2005, the Council on American and Islamic Relations released a report titled “The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States.” In the report they discuss the portions of the PATRIOT Act that are of particular concern. In Section 213, known as “sneak and peek” law enforcement can conduct secret searches of anyone’s home or apartment without a warrant or notification of the owner. In Sections 215 and 505 law enforcement can access any type of record such as sales, library, financial, or medical without needing a probably cause and holders of the information cannot disclose if they have ever provided the records to federal officials. Both of these portions appear to violate the protections given in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. In Sections 411 and 802 the official definition of domestic terrorism is expanded so that even college student groups who engage in certain types of protest could be labeled as terrorists. (CAIR 13-14). The sweeping and invasive powers granted under the PATRIOT Act extend much further than the few examples cited here, but show how the civil rights of Americans and especially those in a minority and biased position could see their civil rights severely violated.

The first targeting of the Arab and Muslim population in the United States under the auspices of this law occurred in late 2001. 1,200 Muslim and Arab men throughout the country were rounded up and imprisoned on pre-textual immigration violations. The Justice Department refused to disclose their identities, give them access to lawyers or allow them to have contact with their families. (CAIR 7) In November of 2001 the official plan of the government was to seek out and interview at least 5000 men between 18 and 33 who legally entered the US on non-immigration visas in the last two years from countries that are linked to terrorism. The list of individuals was complied solely on the country of origin with no knowledge of any relevant terrorist activities. Law enforcement visited mosques, schools and homes for the interviews. (CAIR 10) The program NSEERS, National Security Entry Exit Registration System, was adopted at this time as well. The special registration required all male nationals of 25 countries over the age of 14 to register with the federal government. Twenty-four of the countries were Arab or Muslim nations, with North Korea being the only other country on the list. (CAIR 11) One year after the program started 83,310 foreign nationals were registered with 13,740 placed into deportation proceedings. None of them were charged with a terrorism crime. (CAIR 12) In January of 2002, John Ashcroft proposed another series of interviews with 3000 Arab, Muslim or South Asian men legally residing in the United States as students or visitors. Ashcroft claimed that there were 314,000 absconders, persons who were subject to deportation but failed to present themselves, in the United States. Only 6000 of these people, less than 2% were from Muslim or Arab countries, but it was only this portion of absconders that were targeted by the government. By May 2002, 585 had been located and again no terrorists were apprehended. (CAIR 8).

On May 8, 2002 the government arrested Abdullah al Mahajir, born as Jose Padilla as a suspected terrorist. He has never been formally charged or convicted of any crime but is being held at a military prison, with no trial scheduled and no physical evidence of any sort or indication that he was involved with terrorist activity. Prejudicial treatment by the American government extends beyond just those accused of crimes. Lynne Stewart is a sixty-two year old trial lawyer who defended Abdel Rahman, who was later convicted for conspiracy in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In April 2002 she was indicted by John Ashcroft for “collaborating with terrorists” in connection with her defense of Rahman. The Justice Department claims she provided material assistance to Rahman by facilitating communication with him and his followers, by issuing a press release on his behalf. The government also covertly videotaped her confidential meetings with Rahman and wiretapped the phones of her assistant. Stewart believes her case is an attempt by the government to dissuade other political lawyers from aggressively defending clients in similar positions in the future. These are just two of the dozens of cases in American courts right now related to the detention of Arab and Muslim Americans. But there are still problems that exist in everyday American life for those who have not been arrested and are simply trying to live their lives.

Hate crimes against Arab-Americans are becoming a more common occurrence. In her report for the Christian Science Monitor, Amanda Paulson describes some incidences of violence in 2003. In Brooklyn Larme Price confessed to killing shopkeepers because he wanted to kill Middle Easterners in retribution for September 11th. An Afghan man was set on fire in his Indianapolis restaurant and a Pakistani man was beaten unconscious in a New Jersey parking lot while his assailants hurled insults to Islam. In Phoenix someone threw a homemade bomb of dry-ice into the backyard of an Iraqi-American family and in Burbank, IL a man blew up a Palestinian family’s van. (Paulson) After the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, Arabs were instantly targeted and over 300 reports of hate crimes were filed, there was no Arab involvement in the incident. (Shaheen 7). After 9/11 several Muslim high school students from Palmdale, CA chose to remain home from high school after a note was posted at their school that they would be massacred in retaliation for the World Trade Center attacks. (CNN) In an article by Stephanie Armour of USA Today examples of workplace discrimination are detailed. Even four years after 9/11 employees claim they are still being discriminated against. In 2004, CAIR received 280 claims of workplace discrimination. A 2001 lawsuit against the New York Plaza hotel alleged employees of Muslim, Arab and Southeast Asian decent were labeled “terrorist,” “Taliban” and “dumb Muslim.” The mangers also allegedly wrote “Osama” and “Taliban” instead of employee names on key holders. A lawsuit was filed against an MBNA bank subsidiary in Philadelphia claiming offensive comments were made against Indian and black employees after 9/11. One of which was that an Indian employee was called “Osama bin Laden.” (Armour)

It is impossible to claim that the injustices that have been suffered by Arab and Muslim and Arab Americans are isolated incidents. The American public has created a negative image of this group of people, through biased media representation and stereotyping from specific incidences. It appears the public is no longer able to separate the perpetrators of a specific incident from the general population. This is especially damaging in relations to the attitudes that are being developed by children. As can be seen in the psychological studies done of children, how people are portrayed in the media they have access to has a direct effect on how they see these people. The government has exacerbated the situation by arresting and interrogating people who have no link to terrorism. This vilifies them and creates a sentiment among the general population that all Arabs and Muslims might be terrorists.

We are at a critical moment in the history of our nation. While it is important to protect our national security we must also uphold those virtues that make our nation. Can we risk segregating a large portion of our society and condemning them all as terrorists or criminals? The United States has an important task at hand and one that should not be taken lightly. If we wish to truly “stand united” we must stop dividing. The media should be presenting a balance view of the world, and not be biased towards Arabs and Muslims. The government must do its best to be objective. They must weigh the security priorities and still retain the constitutional provisions that have held our country together for the last two hundred and thirty years. The current climate of prejudice against Arabs and Muslims risks the creation of a generation of racist and xenophobic children who have viewed the demonization of the Arab and Muslim population through television, movies, their parents and their government. If the situation in our country today is less than optimal for Arabs and Muslims it could be even worse for the next generation. Americans must understand both sides of the picture in order to create intelligent and informed decisions both individually and collectively. We must work towards this direction.

[Together4ever 1]

Thank soooo much for posting this.