Artist/Painter/Illustrator  Manny Silva’s brilliant artwork can be found and purchased at http://www.drawingpostcards.com/ 

Protecting National Security Through More Liberal Admission of Immigrants

http://www.nexusjournal.org/blog/2007/10/08/protecting-national-security-through-more-liberal-admission-of-immigrants/

Dean Kevin R. Johnson 

    As a response to the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration employed harsh measures, including mass arrests, interrogations, and detentions of Arabs and Muslims. Outside the United States, in addition to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. government detained scores of people and, at times, abused prisoners. The President declared that persons that he designated as “enemy combatants” had precious few rights under the law; he further proclaimed that they could not even challenge their designation as “enemy combatants” in a court of law – a position later rejected by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, in the name of national security, the U.S. government through, for example, electronic surveillance and monitoring the book borrowing records of public libraries, compromised the privacy rights of U.S. citizens as well as immigrants.

When it comes to immigration law and policy, the events of September 11, 2001 had particularly pernicious impacts. Fears of terrorism led to a variety of immigration restrictions, from stricter monitoring of foreign scholars and students seeking to enter the United States on nonmmigrant (temporary) visas to new immigration requirements and procedures. Many measures explicitly targeted Arab and Muslim immigrants, including “special” registration requirements, mass detentions, and deportation operations. See generally David Cole, Enemy Aliens, 54 STAN. L. REV. 953 (2002). Immigrants of all nationalities ultimately felt the sting of the strict enforcement of the immigration laws, with record numbers of deportations (with few of the deportees having anything to do with terrorism).

Claiming that the need to avoid another September 11 required greatly increased enforcement along the southern border with Mexico, a vocal group of law- and policy-makers deeply influenced the national debate over immigration reform in 2006-07. See Jennifer M. Chacón, Unsecured Borders: Immigration Restrictions, Crime Control and National Sovereignty, 39 CONN. L. REV. 1827 (2007) (analyzing these claims); Kevin R. Johnson & Bernard Trujillo, Immigration Reform, National Security After September 11, and the Future of North American Integration, 91 MINN. L. REV. 1369 (2007) (same). Such claims gained credence even though there was no evidence that any of the September 11 terrorists had entered the United States unlawfully from the South or that undocumented immigrants from Mexico had anything to do with terrorist acts in this country.

As one member of Congress aptly observed,

the necessary pursuit of national security should not have been used . . . to enact unrelated and radical changes in immigration laws under the guise of preventing terrorism. Unfortunately, members of Congress have abused arguments for national security to enact hundreds of radical changes in immigration laws. . . . Instead of enacting rational immigration reform that will indeed strengthen our national security, Congress has enacted immigration changes that have very little or nothing to do with national security. [Republican] revolutionaries “revolutionized” the American tradition of immigration but, unfortunately, did not bring revolutionary change to protecting America from terrorists.

U.S. Representative Zoe Lofgren, A Decade of Radical Change in Immigration Law: An Insider Perspective, 16 STAN. L. & POL’Y REV. 349, 377-78 (2005) (emphasis added).

A majority of the nation apparently found it acceptable to sacrifice civil rights, especially those of immigrants, to protect the security of the nation. But is the nation any safer today because of the various measures taken by the U.S. government since September 11? Polls show that a majority of Americans do not necessarily feel safer. Nonetheless, calls persist that the “war on terror” requires increased border enforcement and nothing less than monumental efforts to fence, bolster, and otherwise close the border with Mexico. Little can be gained in terms of security, however, by restrictionist laws and draconian enforcement policies that cannot effectively be enforced at the ground level and, to make matters worse, are arbitrary, overbroad, and unfair, thereby alienating the very communities whose assistance is essential in combating terrorism.

    Importantly, the United States’s immigration “problems” began long before September 11. Unrealistic immigration laws for decades have forced millions of migrants to evade the law to enter this country and, once here, live on the periphery of American social life. As President George W. Bush correctly observed in calling for immigration reform, “illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. . . . [T]he vast majority . . . are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives. They are part of American life, but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law.” Address to the Nation on Immigration Reform, PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS (May 22, 2006) (emphasis added).

Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, efforts to improve the security of the United States do not require monumental efforts to close the borders. Put differently, an open society need not be a country whose national security is more at risk than one with nominally closed borders. Instead, the U.S. government must comprehensively reform its laws to better manage a lawful, orderly, and regulated migration into its territory and to fulfill basic political, economic (including labor needs), and social goals, as well as to protect the national security.

A number of commentators have proposed more flexible immigration admission systems to better ensure national security. See, e.g., Bill Ong Hing, Misusing Immigration Policies in the Name of Homeland Security, 6 NEW CENTENNIAL REV. 195, 207-16 (2006); Jan Ting, Immigration Law Reform After 9/11: What Has Been and What Still Needs to Be, 17 TEMP. INT’L & COMP. L.J. 503, 512-15 (2003). To improve the security of the nation, as well as to pursue other important goals, the United States must dramatically revamp its immigration admissions system. A scheme that better matches the political, social, and economic factors contributing to the demand for immigration would minimize the incentive for undocumented immigration and thus limit the creation and maintenance of a shadow population of millions of people.

At a time that the United States engages in a “war on terror,” a proposal to liberalize admissions to protect national security may seem counter-intuitive, if not simply misguided. But, a carefully-crafted, liberal admissions scheme could allow for a more secure and safer United States.

Consider the status quo. The United States has millions of residents effectively living off the books. The nation requires an immigration system that ensures that the U.S. government has the basic information, such as name and address, about all of our residents. Such information is necessary for effective law enforcement that will allow the nation to better protect national security and ensure public safety.

The lack of official information on undocumented immigrants is no small gap. According to the best estimates, somewhere between 10.5 and 12 million undocumented immigrants live in the United States today. Rather than engaging in futile efforts to seal the border, the U.S. government needs to better respond to the modern political, economic, and social realities currently fueling immigration to the country and contributing to the ever-growing number of people who live and work in our communities in contravention of the current U.S. immigration laws. The fundamental truth is simple: migrants come to work; employers give them jobs. Generations of migration from Mexico to the United States have created deep and enduring family and social networks facilitating migration. Absent dramatic economic and social changes, immigrants will continue to come lawfully and unlawfully to the United States for jobs and to reunite with family members. Lacking legal means to come to the United States, migrants today literally risk life and limb to come to this land of freedom and opportunity in violation of the law. Because mass deportations of millions of immigrants are out of the question, a more realistic – and secure — immigration system would need to bestow lawful immigration status on most of the millions of undocumented immigrants who today live in the United States.

Besides creating a record-keeping system that includes undocumented immigrants, we need to greatly improve the current system of tracking lawful immigrants and temporary visitors to the United States. The technology unquestionably exists to accurately track noncitizens entering and exiting the country. There can be no excuse for the current haphazard state of the nation’s immigration record-keeping systems.

Ultimately, we need truly comprehensive immigration reform, not so-called reform that amounts to nothing more than tinkering at the margins and would require revisting – to address, among other matters, calls to “legalize” a new population of undocumented immigrants – in the not-too-distant future. My book OPENING THE FLOODGATES: WHY AMERICA NEEDS TO RETHINK ITS BORDERS AND IMMIGRATION LAWS (NYU Press, 2007) re-conceptualizes the nature and purpose of the U.S. borders and calls for the liberalization of the U.S. immigration laws. In essence, I advocate a system in which immigrants generally are admitted to the United States unless demonstrated to be a danger to national security or public safety. Today, the presumption is precisely the opposite – any noncitizen seeking to enter the country is presumed not to have any right to enter. More liberal admissions would be more consistent with the open society that we cherish. More liberal admissions also would be more consistent with the nation’s oft-stated immigration ideal, as articulated in Emma Lazurus’s poem inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.

Another possible model for American consideration in fashioning meaningful immigration reform is the European Union (EU), which generally allows labor migration within the member nations. The EU’s success has led to nations seeking to join the union and its steady expansion. The economies of the different nations of Europe have boomed with the free movement of goods, services, capital, and labor. This labor migration has worked well and, despite initial fears of mass migration, did not result in large movements of people. A North American Union, allowing for the free movement of labor between Canada, Mexico, and the United States would fit comfortably with the free flow of goods and services between the North American nations required by the North American Free Trade Agreement. Such a union might cure many of the immigration problems that we see today. See T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Legal Immigration Reform: Toward Rationality and Equity, in BLUEPRINTS FOR AN IDEAL LEGAL IMMIGRATION POLICY 5 (Richard D. Lamm & Alan Simpson eds., 2001).

    In sum, the United States needs to greatly restructure its immigration laws. Regularizing the status of undocumented immigrants in the country would better integrate them into American social life, which would strengthen the social fabric. Liberalizing the admission of immigrants would inhibit the emergence of a future undocumented population. With the elimination of a shadow population of more than ten million people and better monitoring of who is or is not in the United States, the nation would be more secure as well as better off economically, politically, and socially.
____

Kevin R. Johnson is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of California, Davis School of Law and Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies. He is co-editor of the ImmigrationProf blog, http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/.

WAJAHAT ALI

Nine black robes lead the highest judiciary in the land. Nine black robes, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, control the federal judiciary with a final and binding interpretation on the Constitutionality of federal laws. Nine independent, opinionated, passionate and political minds hold the power to declare the legality of abortion, prayer in school, and affirmative action.

These nine individuals are examined in light of landmark decisions in Jeffrey Toobin’s best-selling book, The Nine. Toobin, a CNN legal analyst and New Yorker journalist, recently sat down for an exclusive interview to discuss the Court’s recent ruling in the controversial Bush v. Gore decision of 2000, the future of abortion in Roe v. Wade, the legality of the anti-terrorism measures in the post 9-11 America, and the strengths and failures of the media’s coverage of the Iraq War.

ALI: For many Muslim Americans, and the general populace as well, the War on Terror has brought about an “abuse of Executive powers” to the detriment of civil liberties and Due Process rights of the American citizens. Furthermore, we see the detention of non-combatant individuals in Guantanamo Bay, warrant less wiretapping, the Terrorism Surveillance Act and so forth. How pervasive, if at all, have post 9-11 “security” measures encroached on Due Process rights of American citizens and the “human rights” of the international community in general?

TOOBIN: This has been one of the key issues in the Supreme Court since 9-11. The battle between the Bush administration and – to the great extent the court – about how much civil liberties can be trimmed back in the interest of preserving National Security. One of the themes of my book, and one of the striking things of the Supreme Court over the past 7 years has been that the Court has rebuked the Bush administration repeatedly, and said it’s behavior and its system, in particular Guantanamo, does not work and is not permissible under the Constitution.

That struggle continues and there’s another case before the court now, but the court has several times said to the Bush administration, “What you have done is not acceptable.”

ALI: Name me one example.

TOOBIN: I think the biggest example was in 2004 when the Bush Administration said people could be confined in Guantanamo without access to lawyers, without access to courts. The Supreme Court very clearly and very emphatically said, “No. You have to give them Due Process Rights.” In 2005, the Court said not good enough. So, it’s a real struggle.

ALI: How has the Supreme Court reacted to the 4^th Amendment Due Process violations, specifically, in the Warrantless Wiretaps?

TOOBIN: The Supreme Court has not decided those issues as of yet. Those issues have mostly been in the political realm so far, not in the courts. So, the issue of warrantless wiretaps, the issue of surveillance generally – due to much of the Patriot Act – has not really come up.

ALI: Do you see it coming up anytime soon on the docket?

TOOBIN: Not really, because the cases haven’t made their way through.

ALI: Let’s first talk about “Bush v Gore.” Your book spends considerable time on the 2000 Supreme Court decision that essentially handed Bush the hotly contested Presidential election, saying the Florida recounts would be a constitutional violation. Many say this was a landmark and outrageous act and the court acted rashly and recklessly with their decision. Describe the influential impact of that decision not only on the political-cultural landscape of America but also amongst the relationships between Supreme Court Justices themselves. Did Al Gore and others act appropriately in giving into the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore?

TOOBIN: Wow. That’s a big question. As I make clear in the book, I think Bush v. Gore was very much a low moment in the history of the court. I think the Court really behaved badly, and I think the Court should’ve let the recount proceed. It was just a really disappointing moment in the history of the Court. Certainly, the Justices in the minority were heartbroken, but they are in the business of getting along with each other. And, so it didn’t poison relationships. They put their nose down and got back to work.

Did Gore react appropriately? I think Gore had to concede that the Supreme Court had final authority. One of my favorite quotes about the court is one Justice Robert Jackson said, “We are not final because we are infallible. We are infallible because we are final.” They are final, because they have the last word. I think they were wrong. I think Gore believes they were wrong. But, there are no appeals in the Supreme Court.

ALI: What was the impetus for the Court to make such a rash decision so quickly?

TOOBIN: I think given the fact the new President had to be inaugurated January 20^th, they had to move quickly since they were already in mid-December. I didn’t think they had to move as quickly as they thought they had to move. But, certainly the case had to be expedited. Frankly, I think the much smarter move, which the dissenters recommended, was to not get involved at all. Let the Florida courts handle the Florida recount and stay out of it.

ALI: Of course we can all assume here, but do you think there would’ve been a difference if the Florida courts would’ve handled it themselves?

TOOBIN: Well, this is a great, historical question, and there have been subsequent recounts with ambiguous results. I think the only fair answer is if Bush had lost Bush v. Gore we don’t know who would’ve been President; we don’t know how the recounts would’ve turned out. Since the Court decided the way it did, the election could only have been won by Bush. So, a decision for Gore would have let the votes be counted and let the chips fall where they may. A decision for Bush was a decision to make Bush the President.

ALI: We see each administration, whether Republican or Democrat, try to fill Supreme Court vacancies (when they arise) with ideologically like minded individuals. What presidencies, in your opine, have gone against the partisan, ideological divide in their Supreme Court nominees and chosen “the best candidate for the job” regardless of ideological affiliation? Do you see any differences in the likely Supreme Court nominees of Clinton and Obama (assuming they win)? Similarly for McCain (assuming he wins?)

TOOBIN: I disagree with the premise of your question. I don’t think there is such a thing as a best nominee independent of politics. I think given the kind of issues that are before the Supreme Court, there are inherently ideological distinctions to be made. That is not something that is a criticism of the Court or the Justices; I think that is just a realistic assessment of the issues the Court gets. I think there’s a huge difference between whom Obama or Clinton would nominate, or whom McCain would nominate. I don’t see a big deference between Clinton or Obama, but I do see a huge difference with McCain.

McCain is on record as saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Republicans don’t believe in racial preferences. So, it’s a huge, huge difference

ALI: If McCain comes in, is it safe to say that they will try to come in with a right-wing judicial candidates to “pack the Court?”

TOOBIN: “Pack the Court” – I don’t think that is a fair – I think a Republican like McCain will appoint Justices in line with his own views, which is the right of every President. He will appoint Justices who are very conservative on law enforcement, who will believe in broad Executive Power; people who don’t believe the Constitution protect a woman’s rights to abortion. These are issues that different between the parties.

ALI: Americans have heard the term “Judicial Activism” and “packing the court” frequently in the past 5 years from the Republican Party. The former relating to a complaint that liberal judges legislate from the bench, implementing “laws” when their role is simply that of a judiciary commenting on the constitutionality of certain legal actions. The latter referring to an overt and concentrated effort to fill the Supreme Court with “right wing” judges. Is it healthy for a functional democracy to be an ideological majority of any group on the Supreme Court?

TOOBIN: Well, you know, I think this is question for the voters. If they keep Republicans as President then there should be a majority of Conservatives on the Court, because that’s how our system is setup. So, I don’t have a problem with that. It’s a reflection of the voting populace.

ALI: Let’s talk about Abortion and the abortion cases: Roe v. Wade and Casey. From your experience as a reporter, legal analyst, observer and commentator on politics and society, why does this issue and specifically this legal decision, arguably more than any other, inspire such vehement and feverish debate and passions? What is the future of Roe v Wade and Carey?

TOOBIN: I think those are two great questions. Abortion has become the single, most important issue in the Supreme Court. First of all, there is immense practical significance to the Court’s ruling. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, then abortion will be illegal in about a third of the country the next day. It’s an extremely practical change. Second, abortion is now symbolic of a whole political mindset that relates to women’s rights, to sexual revolution, and banning abortion is – historically – an extremely important thing to some. So, that’s why Roe v Wade is such a big deal. I take McCain at his word. He says he wants it overturned and he will appoint Justices who will do it, and I think that’s true.

ALI: There has been increased corporatization of American media and journalist outlets. Most in America, regardless of their political ideology, almost 70%, openly say they no longer trust the “news” and believe it to be biased. Furthermore, there has been domestic and international criticism regarding “embedded journalists” during the Iraq War and the media’s susceptibility to tow the Administration’s line and refusal to ask probing questions regarding military intelligence, weapons of mass destruction and the motives behind the war. Now, you’re a reporter from CNN, a respected news station and a reporter from New Yorker, an influential and intellectual magazine. Do you believe the masses’ skepticism and cynicism towards news media outlets is warranted? Should the media be criticized for their handling of the Iraq War?

TOOBIN: Certainly. The news media gets a lot of criticism, and it deserves a lot of criticism. We’re an important part of the country. We’re an important institution, and we should get the same type of scrutiny we purport to give others. So, I think scrutiny is a great idea. I think the news media’s performance, particularly in the lead up to the war of Iraq in 2002-2003, was a low moment for the news media. I think there was an absence to skepticism – that was really wrong. I think we’ve largely made up for it. Particularly I think in Bush’s second term we’ve seen a very aggressive and intelligent news media performance. So, I think we’re imperfect, but more good than bad.

WAJAHAT ALI

Violence and unpredictably court Pakistan like a loyal and persistent stalker – or spurned lover. Over the past year, nearly a thousand Pakistanis have died as a direct result of suicide bombings, roadside blasts and conflicts with militants and extremists operating within its borders. Alongside the violence, Pakistan elected the PPP [Bhutto’s party] with a clear majority, however Musharaff still retains his role as President with U.S. support and backing. Asif Zardari, Benazir’s husband also affectionately known as “Mr. Ten Percent” for his illustrious career in corruption, was recently acquitted of all criminal charges, thus making him a candidate for Prime Minister. And, before one forgets, there’s also the dramatic rise of “the Pakistan Taliban” and insurgent leftovers from the Afghan-Soviet war. Veteran Pakistani journalist, Zahid Hussain, clearly analyzes the forces leading to Pakistan’s sudden surge of violence and militancy in his celebrated book, Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle with Militant Islam, which was praised by both Seymour Hersh and Taliban author, Ahmed Rashid. Here’s an exclusive conversation with Hussain that took place just this week.

ALI: A Bomb blast just happened in Pakistan [March 11^th, twin suicide bombs killing nearly 24 in Lahore.] You’re there and you’re on the scene. Tell us in America what we don’t see on CNN or FOX News. Who did it? Why did it happen? What the reality on the ground?

HUSSAIN: This is the latest in the series of suicide bombings which has shaken Pakistan over the last few months. There has been a marked intensification in these terrorist attacks. The latest attack was at FIA – The Federal Investigation Agency building. It definitely looks like the work of Islamic militants. This building was particularly targeted, since it has a counter terrorism unit, which was trained by the U.S. That could be major reason for it being targeted.

In the last few months, we’ve seen that the terrorists have increasingly targeted the security institutions and army installations. Nobody ever claimed responsibility for these attacks, but what the police and intelligence agencies suspect that it is all emanating from the [Northern] Tribal Regions. And, possibly, could be the work of Al Qaeda.

ALI: So, you say the Waziristan and Northern Tribal regions of Pakistan could possibly be connected to these attacks on security bases, but the ISI [Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency], which you described in your book as a “state within the state” and the “Big Brother” of Pakistan, has tangential and direct connections to extremist groups. So, why are these extremist militants now turning around and attacking the same intelligence agencies, arguably, that have nurtured them for the past 20 years?

HUSSAIN: Certainly, they helped these militant organizations, because [the militants] were helping and serving Pakistan’s regional policy. They were used as instruments of policy for over 20 years, but definitely things changed after 9-11. First, there was pressure from the United States. The Pakistan and American government suspended the support of the Taliban government. Despite the fact the ISI had helped prop up the Taliban government in Afghanistan- which also helped America as well. Obviously, then there was suspicion that the part of the ISI had still – if not directly patronizing the militant organizations – continued to have that link.

Over the past 2 years, this is no longer the situation. Until December 2006, we had not seen the army or military organizations targeted by the militants. But this changes after 2 or 3 incidents. Particularly, about 80 so-called militants, or people say, madrassa students, were killed. That was the turning point I suppose. The attack was supposedly carried out by the U.S., but the Pakistani government owned it.

After that, we had seen – for the first time- militants had targeted the army outside the tribal areas. A suicide bomb attack on the training ground in Northern province killed about 40 soldiers. It increased further in July 2007, after the raid on the Red Mosque [Pakistani commando units killed nearly 173 radical students, when overtaking the besieged Red Mosque.] After that, we’ve seen a large rise in suicide bomb attacks. The army and intelligence service agencies then became the prime target of those attacks.

That would be the turning point. There have been at least 7 to 8 attacks in Rawalpindi [District of Pakistan in Northern Punjab province] alone.

ALI: You’ve traveled to Afghanistan. You’ve been to Waziristan and crossed the border. You’ve seen the most dangerous places close hand. Before we discuss extremism and militant Islam, I want you to give me your definition and characteristic traits of militancy existing within Pakistan today. What aspects of Pakistani society today do you consider as the militant extremists?

HUSSAIN: The militants are those forces, who at one point, formed an organization to wage so-called jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan. We saw those organizations, in particular, in the 1990’s. All those organizations had come up and were formed by the leaders who had fought in Afghanistan, those who had fought with the Afghan mujaheddin, in the 1980’s. But, later, after the end of Soviet control over Afghanistan, these same people formed militant organizations that first fought in Kashmir, and also, some of them supported the Taliban government in Afghanistan. In 1990’s, when they were formed, they all had tacit support from the Pakistani intelligence agencies. At that time, the jihad militancy was used as a part of Pakistan’s’ policy.

After 9-11, what happened is that President Musharaff banned some of the organizations, and some of them disintegrated and turned into a small cell that had already operated in Pakistan. After 2001, they started attacking the foreign consulates. We have seen the attack on the American consulate 3 times. They were not happy with Pakistan’s policy, but initially, their target was foreign installations. They did not target the Pakistani military understanding, ultimately, that the military would eventually be their supporters.

Some of these groups have been waging jihad against the Pakistani government – against the government of Musharaff – thinking that he had collaborated with the Americans. So, anyone who had collaborated with Americans had to become their target. There is also a perception that the Pakistan military is pursuing the American agenda. This is the change we have seen in Pakistan over the past one and a half years.

ALI: Let’s build a foundation. Let’s talk about Kashmir, which for some reason no one discusses here in the American press. Here is a small, sliver of land, most would argue is hardly worth fighting over, yet it has caused 2 wars and is a prime catalyst for mutually assured destruction between India and Pakistan. Why is Kashmir so significant, and how has it, if at all, been used and abused as a proxy for political gain?

HUSSAIN: Well, I wouldn’t say that it is just a small piece of land. Definitely, this has been a root cause of problems between both countries since their inception as independent states. It has been the major cause of conflict between the two countries. It goes back to 1989, there was an indigenous uprising by Kashmiris against Indian policy. And, definitely, Pakistan did support this uprising. Initially, what we had seen was that the people who were fighting against the Indian army were the Kashmiris themselves, who might have got some training from Pakistan. But after the early 1990’s, we saw a large number of Pakistani fighters going inside Kashmir and fighting. So, in a way, that is what has kept that struggle alive.

But, in fact, it has had huge consequences in that it has damaged the Kashmiri’s struggle and it has definitely harmed them. It showed India that it was nothing else but support from Pakistan for the Pakistan militants fighting there. The military did not realize the long-term consequences of doing this. The 2 major effects is that number one: it harms Kashmiri’s political struggle for independence. The second thing they didn’t realize is that by supporting these militant Islamic units supposedly waging jihad against India and to liberate Kashmir, they didn’t realize this would come back and haunt them.

ALI: Blowback.

HUSSAIN: Yeah, a blowblack. And then when the Pakistan government tried to stop them, the militants turned the jihad inwards, and that’s what we’re facing today in Pakistan.

ALI: The decision and political machinations to declare Pakistan’s Prime Minister were discussed this week on the cover of the New York Times. To observers, Pakistan looks like Monty Pythons flying circus. We have twice deposed, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Bhutto’s convict husband Asif Zadari, affectionately know as “Mr. 10%” for his history of corruption, and Musharaff, a man who exiled Nawaz Sharif since the latter tried to assassinate him. With all these selfish, political players in power, one must ask: does this represent a return to democracy for Pakistan or is this just a front for feudal power-sharing like we’ve seen before?

HUSSAIN: I don’t think so. The people of Pakistan have given a clear verdict. The past is certainly not enviable, but it is a political process. I don’t agree with the people who malign everything; those who say that Pakistan isn’t fit for democracy. I think it’s wrong. Even in democracies, we have seen cases of corruption. In India, we have seen that the whole system, the politicians, almost every big politician has been accused of something or another. Rajiv Ghadni, when he was Prime Minister, he was accused of getting commissions on transactions. I’m not saying that all politicians there are not clean. But, India has come through a process.

As far as Nawaz Sharif and others are concerned, look, they have made many mistakes, but still actually they represent people here. People have voted for them here, and one must respect that. These kinds of articles that are printed about Pakistan, they do not see the whole picture. This is a typical thing which says, “Pakistan is not fit for democracy. It cannot run the government itself.” And I don’t agree with that.

ALI: The United States, as you know, has been very timid in its recent relations and approach with Pakistan specifically about the restoration of the Justices who were sacked by Musharaff last year. Yet, at the same time, they gave Musharaff nearly $10 billion dollars, who now seems like a lame duck, and billions of dollars to former dictator General Zia. So, how is this a microcosm of United States’ overall policy towards Pakistan in the past 20 years? And why are they still supporting Musharaff?

HUSSAIN: It is basically a very narrow policy. They always try to rely on military rulers thinking they can best help their interests in the long-term. What I think is when you say, “They gave $10 billion to Musharaff” – they didn’t give it to one person, but basically since Pakistan is strategically very important to the U.S., that’s why they get military aid. Most of this aid has come in the form military hardware. That basically shows the paradox in American policy. On one hand, they keep talking about democracy, yet they keep supporting military rulers. I’m not much concerned about the judiciary issue. I don’t want America to interfere in any way, and I don’t think they can help restore democracy. I’m not one of those people who says look America should support this person or that person – no. You must really have faith in democracy; if you do, you must allow that to operate and function. Allow that process to continue. This is the best option Pakistan now has to return to democracy. Every democracy loving country should support that process.

Wajahat Ali is Pakistani Muslim American who is neither a terrorist nor a saint. He is a playwright, essayist, humorist, and Attorney at Law, whose work, “The Domestic Crusaders,” (www.domesticcrusaders.com) is the first major play about Muslim Americans living in a post 9-11 America. His blog is at http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/. He can be reached at wajahatmali@gmail.com

“THE DOMESTIC CRUSADERS” [www.domesticcrusaders.com]

Contact: dcpublicity@gmail.com; wajahatmali@gmail.com

• “Domestic Crusaders”  should be ranked with family dramas written by Tennessee Williams and Eugene O’Neil.”
  • Ishmael Reed, MacArthur Genius, Pulitzer nominated author/poet of “Mumbo Jumbo”

• “Wajahat Ali is a major new voice in American literature. His  play is to Muslim American theatre what A Raisin in the Sun is to African American theatre.”
  • Mitch Berman, head of  the Center for Literary Arts

• This play could change the history of American theater, and of America itself.
  • Lawrence Swaim, In Focus Magazine.

Who are The Domestic Crusaders?

The Domestic Crusaders focuses on one day in the life of a modern Muslim Pakistani-American family of six eclectic, unique members, who convene at the family house to celebrate the twenty-first birthday of the youngest child.

With a background of 9-11 and the scapegoating of Muslim Americans, the tensions and sparks fly among the three generations, culminating in an intense family battle as each “crusaders” struggles to assert and impose their respective voices and opinions, while still attempting to maintain and understand that unifying thread that makes them part of the same family.

The three generations of the family include: the grandfather, Hakim, a retired, Pakistani army official who harbors a terrible secret; Salman, his son, a middle-aged corporate engineer trying to maintain his pride and self-respect; Khulsoom, Salman’s wife, longing for her homeland and wishing to impart her traditions, values, and morals to her American-born children; Salahuddin, the eldest child, stubbornly clinging to his ideals of success, as well as his anger and resentment towards his father; Fatima, the middle child, passionately advocating her Islamic identity, while rejecting the traditional stereotypes and biases of her mother; Ghafur, the youngest, the golden child abandoning his family’s expectations in order to discover his own path. These individuals are “The Domestic Crusaders”!

www.domesticcrusaders.com