Balancing Security: True or False?

by Valerie Ong

Imagine this. There is unrest in your country of Colombia. You have been kidnapped by the FARC guerrillas and forced to work in their encampment. Several weeks later, you escape. You receive refugee status in neighboring Ecuador, but your hopes of receiving protection and being resettled to the United States are shattered.

Under expansive U.S. security laws, you would be barred from entry into the United States for providing “material support” (the work you were forced to do during your abduction) to a “terrorist organization.”

The problems with material support bars are not new. Congress first enacted a material support bar as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. However, the USA PATRIOTAct of 2001 and the REAL ID Act of 2005 (introduced after Sept. 11, 2001) expanded the definition of “terrorism” and listed “terrorist organizations.” Those who provided “material support” to the designated organizations would not be eligible for asylum in the United States. Moreover, a mechanism for differentiating between supporters and victims of those organizations was not provided. Instead of finding refuge in the United States, individuals were turned away for some of the very reasons they sought safety.

The material support bar stipulates that providing a “safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons, explosives, or training” to a “terrorist” or “terrorist organization” prohibits a person from gaining asylum in the United States. This means that victims of “terrorist organizations” forced to pay ransom to kidnappers were often denied entry.

This year, Congress made important changes to the material support bar laws which allow the administration to grant waivers to eligible individuals. They include the Hmong and Montagnards who were displaced because of their support or affiliation with U.S. forces in the VietnamWar.

While the amendments are an improvement to the broad application of the material support bar, appropriate implementation of the new provisions will be vital. How will the administration respond to the refugees in camps and asylum seekers on hold in detention including those who are not eligible to receive waivers? Many lawmakers and U.S. citizens are willing to create “false security” by jeopardizing innocent victims in the process. Continuing to do so may foster the conditions that create terrorism and isolate the United States from the rest of the world. The interest of security must be balanced with a sense of pragmatism and compassion.