Red tape sends message: Breaking rules gets results

In a mobile and rapidly changing society such as the United States, it is normal to expect some turnover in governmental agencies.

Yet I was unaware of how serious this had become until recently, when an acquaintance who was granted political asylum in the 1990s called to express his anger and disgust at the manner in which he was being treated by the Department of Homeland Security.

It seems that when the DHS was created by merging many agencies, a large number of experts in middle and upper management were unhappy with the state of affairs and opted to retire or find other jobs. This left the new security agency woefully deficient in institutional memory.

Indeed, a recent report on National Public Radio claimed the department has lost so many people that few, if any, remember events and policies of the late 1990s.

My acquaintance invested in a small business to support himself and his new family and embarked on the next step in attaining permanent residency. In May 2001, he asked the Department of Justice to adjust his status to a legal resident.

As usual in these cases, Justice mandated a slew of letters of support from organizations recognized by the U.S. government.
He received letters of support from other asylees, Amnesty International and American citizens. He got letters of support from Libyan political organizations opposed to Col. Moammar Gadhafi. These organizations had worked closely with the State Department and other agencies to undermine Gadhafi during the Reagan administration, when the colonel was the "Daddy Warbucks of terrorism" and "the most dangerous man in the world."

Apparently, today few, if any, in Homeland Security have the foggiest idea who Gadhafi is, let alone any of the organizations America supported in opposing the Libyan dictator.

In any event, the DHS decided to retroactively classify organizations that opposed Gadhafi in the 1980s as terrorist organizations, and hence because of my acquaintance's support for these organizations, it planned to deny him adjustment of status.

The DHS did this in spite of the fact that the State Department refused to classify these Libyan organizations as supporters of terrorism or put them on its list of terrorist organizations. And, ironically, full American recognition of Gadhafi has not been granted because of the dictator's miserable human rights record and his failed attempt to assassinate the Saudi king a few years ago.

Unfortunately, after 9-11, the State Department has no say in immigration issues, and these poor legal immigrants have to deal with idiosyncratic decisions based on ignorance.

A number of things bother me about this episode. First, it is important that DHS screen all applicants for U.S. residency to ensure they are who they claim to be. However, to turn against people and organizations whose interests coincided with ours and whom we recognized as legitimate and just is truly shameful.

What message does this send to anyone helping America promote democracy? Has the Bush administration now changed its tune on why it went to Iraq, and are human rights and democracy issues swept under the rug?

Second, what kind of legal system permits such retroactive imposition of new laws?

Third, it seems that in the current political environment, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, with one agency saying something and another the opposite. What happened to the records? In this computer-driven age, records must exist, even if all the employees have left. If it can't keep track of such simple issues, how will the DHS keep track of who goes in and out of this country?

Fourth, my sympathy goes out to all individuals touched by such incompetence and mismanagement. But my true sympathy goes to the Department of Homeland Security for this paralysis and lack of wisdom that resulted from the loss of its institutional memory.

Finally, this kind of treatment reinforces the assumption that when it comes to immigration to the U.S., why would any desperate individual do things legally and wait in line for his turn?

It would have been much easier for my acquaintance to come in illegally and wait for the next amnesty, when he and 11 million others would be legalized, no questions asked.