Becoming American: Why Immigration Is Good for Our Nation's Future (23 page)

The Gulf War drew Americans’ attention to the people of the Middle East like no other event, including the Iranian hostage crisis, had before. Entering into the lexicon were terms such as
jihad
, as the media and political leaders focused on the region’s culture and religion, in part to assuage fears and concerns about Muslims, a faith that few Americans ever considered or deeply understood.

Because of this, one group that left many Americans fearful or at least distrustful was immigrants of Middle Eastern origin. The ongoing dispute between Israel and its neighbors, as well as the Persian Gulf War, helped create an image of an enemy in the minds of many people who easily revert to tribalism in search of that security. That image was a Middle Eastern Muslim male. The 1993 car bombing of the World Trade Center, which killed six and injured more than one thousand people, reinforced that image because most of the perpetrators were from that region’s countries.

Two years later, when a truck bomb destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, killing 168 people, including 19 children, and injuring 680, the first reaction was it was the work of Middle Eastern terrorists. In fact, Americans began to stigmatize, to persecute, and to scapegoat anyone who appeared to be Arab or Muslim, according to Edward T. Linenthal, author of
The Unfinished Bombing: Oklahoma City in American Memory
. As stated in the book,

Many residents of Oklahoma City of Middle Eastern descent or African-American Muslims bore the brunt of the nation’s initial rage at “Muslim terrorists.” KFOR television’s coverage of the bombing informed viewers that a member of the Nation of Islam had taken credit for the bombing. They cautioned it might be a prank call, but repeated the “story” throughout the day’s coverage, with one report noting that similarities with the World Trade Center bombing were “eerie.”
¹¹

The TV station also mistakenly identified an Iraqi man who was a citizen of Oklahoma City as being one of the bombers, Linethal wrote. Yet despite being cleared by the FBI—and even when it became unequivocally clear the bombers were two white Americans—the man “was subject to public harassment and lost his job.”

Despite the contributions of Arab Americans to academics, business, the arts, and famous Americans known for their Muslim faith—Muhammad Ali and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, for example—many Americans held suspicious or negative views of Arab Americans. Many Americans remained stunned that two white U.S. Army veterans, one from Michigan and the other New York, had plotted and carried out what was, at the time, the worst terrorist attack on American soil.

As time went on, however, the bombings at the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City soon became a memory for many Americans, who were distracted by the country’s prosperity. They turned their attention to stock portfolios and mutual funds and to buying bigger homes and bigger vehicles with gas prices low enough to make a sports utility vehicle an affordable luxury. Dot-com companies were starting up and making fortunes; serious-minded business writers were predicting the Dow would reach thirty-six thousand shortly. By decade’s end, moneymaking fever seemed to grip the nation.

The turn of the century was just around the corner, and so were events that would challenge the American system of politics and government, would change Americans’ views of their place in the world, and would, once again, bring fear and loathing of foreigners and immigrants. It seems that no matter the time period, there always remains at least one group of people (which changes depending on what is happening socially and politically) who becomes the target of prejudice and discrimination.

THE NEW ENEMY

After the September 11 terrorist attack, the same sentiment that lead to the internment of loyal Japanese Americans aimed its wrath at anyone dark-skinned and dark-haired, whether Muslim or Sikh, no matter if he or she was a citizen or was born in the United States.

Fear often makes people intolerant or at least quick to judge, and at times to judge wrongly. Such was the misfortune of a Muslim dentist from Texas, Dr. Al Badr Al-Hazim, who was wrongly arrested as a terrorist shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, made front-page news.

The
Philadelphia Daily News
ran his photo on the front page with this headline: “The Devil Among Us.” Al-Hazim was later found to be completely innocent of the charges. Yet that failed to make the front pages.

The attacks that day put America under great stress, largely because of a lack of understanding about the geopolitical state of the Middle East and American policy regarding that region. Islam became a scapegoat by an uninformed society that viewed the religion—not the individuals responsible for the attacks—as extreme and violent. Yet despite instances such as Dr. Al-Hazim, a Saudi native, who was detained for two weeks before the FBI released him, Americans generally viewed most Middle Easterners with tolerance.

Al-Hazim believed this as he waited in his cell, reading the Quran. As he told a newspaper reporter afterward, he turned to Allah for guidance in that dark time. “He wants me to be patient, and he wants me to forgive,” he recalled. “I will be patient, and I will forgive.” 

Particularly targeted were those who wore the customary clothes of their culture or, heaven forbid, had a beard. The anger and suspicion toward Middle Easterners that exploded after 9/11 began brewing in the 1970s with the Arab states’ oil embargo in 1973 to 1974, which impacted not only the American economy but also Americans’ driving habits. This sentiment continued through the first attack by a Muslim extremist on New York City’s World Trade Center in 1993.

In the aftermath of 9/11 and the accompanying economic upheavals, anti-immigrant sentiment flared not only against Muslims in general (and Americans of Middle Eastern heritage) but also against illegal aliens, in particular Mexicans. The anti-immigrant lobby grew potent enough that it was able to secure political and financial support for a wall now being erected along the border between Mexico and the United States.

Despite the obstacles and challenges immigrants of all creeds, colors, and race have faced over the centuries, they have more often than not managed to overcome and to often find opportunity in their new country; many have successfully assimilated, becoming leaders in government and captains of industry, helping to create even greater economic and political opportunities for all Americans. Americans are now less and less identified by a single race or religion and more identified as a nation of grand diversity; an element that has proven to be its strength, not its weakness. It’s doubtful this nation of immigrants would acquiesce to a wall replacing its Golden Door.

The lesson that history teaches us is that, while it is important to acknowledge prejudice and redress where necessary, successful integration for an immigrant requires that he or she persevere in spite of it—something immigrants have managed to do amazingly well.

I like to think of my own story and how, despite the additional barriers placed along the way because of my heritage, I “got over it.” Many of the issues I encountered ended up coming to a legal head, starting with a professor I was completing a research project for while I was a student at Harvard. When his project failed to get published, and he learned that I was also working on another project that had gotten positive notice, he launched an internal investigation. I was eventually exonerated of any wrongdoing, but I was completely unprepared for the manner in which conflict was dealt with in a legal arena in the United States, and so I had seen no need for legal representation.

My case is not unique. Most immigrants, especially those who have recently come to America, rarely revert to lawsuits. Oversees, lawsuits are not nearly as frequent. As evidence, consider the fact that though the United States’ population only accounts for 5 percent of the world’s population, it has 50 percent of the world’s lawyers.
¹²
Additionally, 25 percent of people who are incarcerated reside in U.S. prisons. Thus, because immigrants are largely unused to the widespread prevalence of lawyers, they do not think to hire one. Moreover, when confronted with a potential legal battle, many immigrants feel they will lose anyway, so they choose not to engage when possible. Clearly, the United States’ legal system may not be as supportive for immigrants as it is for native borns. This is particularly the case for undocumented immigrants, who are unprotected by legal services. As Grace Meng, a researcher for the U.S. program at Human Rights Watch, wrote, “Undocumented immigrants have long been afraid of government officials, but that fear is now translating into a fear of the justice system. Immigrants avoid going to court in communities from Fresno to Rochester, even to pay traffic tickets or to help a family member with translation, because Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents like to hang out by the courthouse.”
¹³

Decades later, when the U.S. government decided to downgrade Intrados’ status and reduce an already awarded contract, my reaction this time was to respond legally. However, after years of fighting its decision, I decided to walk away from this David-and-Goliath legal battle and settle the case. Frequently, U.S.-government-initiated lawsuits seem more like legalized extortion, even to U.S. companies and individuals, so you can imagine how immigrants feel about court dealings against government agencies.

But this wasn’t the last of my experiences with U.S. litigious society. As a board member of Nason Medical, I had to undergo yet another investigation, this time by Medicare. While the claim was that we had improperly filled out forms, we had followed the instructions given to us by Medicare’s local office. But these instructions turned out to be incorrect, and this ultimately had no bearing on the outcome. Thus, we had to spend over a million dollars in legal fees and pay a penalty fine, which was much smaller than the legal expenses and all the costs associated with the documents the government subpoenaed.

What’s even more incredible about government health services is that if you underbill, you lose the chance to recuperate your mistake. But if your error is in overbilling—even if it is just a quarter of a percent of invoices (a rate applauded by any other industry)—you are dragged through the mud with highly intrusive audits that cost a fortune. You cannot even obtain credit for any underbilling, which may often be greater in total amount than the overbilling. No wonder our medical system is such a mess! It is this kind of behavior that frightens doctors and providers of health services. Many immigrants feel they will be treated in a similar vein by our justice system and by the courts. Immigrants are thus reluctant to go to court and often even have to learn that going to court is an option. Native borns, on the other hand, do not hesitate to hire a lawyer and go to court.

I wish I hadn’t had to, but I once again gathered myself up and got over it.

RACIAL PROFILING

Efforts by U.S. law enforcement officials meant to curtail illegal immigration have one significantly adverse effect: racial profiling. Many immigrants living in the United States, both legally and illegally, have become victims of racial profiling by law enforcement officials. Essentially, the criteria used by most law enforcement officials is the question: “Does he/she
look
illegal?”

A 2012 survey by the Southern Poverty Law Center found that 47 percent of respondents knew someone who was treated unfairly by the police as the result of an effort to enforce immigration laws.
¹⁴
The most common complaint was that Latinos were pulled over for minor traffic offenses—or no offense at all. This number increased to 55 percent in Alabama and 60 percent in Georgia.

In a recent study by the Pew Hispanic Center, nearly one in ten Hispanic adults (8 percent of native-born U.S. citizens and 10 percent of immigrants) reported that in the past year they had been pulled over by police or other authorities with questions about immigration status.
¹⁵
Additionally, police checkpoints in predominantly Latino neighborhoods are frequent. Data provided by the city of Albertville, Alabama, showed that 73 percent of the vehicles seized and impounded from roadblocks were owned by drivers with Latino surnames. Census data for the small city in north Alabama show that Latinos make up only 16 percent of its population. Because many southern places charge hefty fines for driving illegally, these checkpoints can be a profitable revenue source for local governments. Fines can vary from hundreds to thousands of dollars, and many states can inflict jail time, as well. Some local laws permit police to seize a driver’s vehicle and to fine the owner for the number of days it is in their possession. Also, a number of jurisdictions use minor traffic offenses as an excuse to bring immigrants into deportation proceedings.

According to the ACLU, Hispanics are “more than three times as likely to be searched during a traffic stop,” demonstrating an obvious racial disparity.
¹⁶
The ACLU argues that it is important to note that in previous reports Hispanic drivers were less likely to actually be harboring contraband. In more recent reports, the Justice Department has not included a racial breakdown in these numbers.