The “war on terror” started in earnest immediately following the awful attacks on September 11, 2001. Its legacy has rightly, profoundly placed more onus on the communities and individuals it discriminated against in the United States. The most profound of these effects has been felt on immigrant communities, especially from those countries with a majority Muslim population. In a neighborhood in Brooklyn known as “Little Pakistan,” the government advertised the deportations of Pakistanis as being “linked to the September 11 investigation.” This led to over a third of the local Pakistani population being deported or opting to leave voluntarily. Moreover, the war on terror has overlapped with the Trump administration’s immigration agenda in order to target foreign pro-Palestinian student protesters. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) details, these actions are a direct result of the war on terror. Specifically, they are using these tactics to silence dissent and attack immigrant communities.
According to the American Immigration Council, in the very first sweep after September 11, around 1,200 people were detained. Yet the ACLU report served to illuminate a deeply disturbing reality. Many were held in punitive solitary confinement, only able to leave their cages while restrained by handcuffs and leg irons. This punitive approach, labeled countering violent extremism (or CVE), has come under fire for viewing Muslim communities — not as our American compatriots — but instead as suspected threats. Spencer Ackerman, a journalist and author, stated, “Almost immediately after 9/11, Muslim communities were treated not as fellow New Yorkers who were living through the trauma of an attack on their city, but as potential accessories, witnesses, or perpetrators of a follow-on attack.”
Historical Context and Government Actions
The roots of the targeting of immigrant communities run deep, and can be rooted back to colonial times. The New York City police intelligence bureau, once known as the Red Squad and earlier called ‘the Italian squad,’ played a role in surveillance and enforcement. The civil rights era traditions of surveilling marginalized communities have continued to be invoked by the many administrations that followed. Dandia, a Muslim community organizer, remarked, “Even if what Trump is attempting now is unprecedented, it’s drawing from longstanding traditions and policies.”
This is the first time the US government has used such extreme measures against organizations it declares to be foreign terrorist organizations. Since 1997, Hamas has been on the list, making it illegal for US citizens and residents to give them “material support.” This policy has further compounded the difficulties for people like Mahmoud Khalil. He recently found himself in the national media spotlight after participating in campus protests and demonstrations calling out Israel’s actions in Gaza. According to the Department of Homeland Security, Khalil’s participation is evidence of his support for Hamas. They’ve still failed to announce any charges or evidence shown against him.
Intersection of Immigration and the War on Terror
During the Trump administration, one place where immigration policies and the war on terror have collided has become obvious. Additionally, foreign pro-Palestinian student protesters are being investigated. As Nikhil Singh noted, “It’s the immigration agenda colliding with the war on terror.” This toxic intersection has resulted in a hollowing out of long-held constitutional rights and a broadening of presidential authority.
Singh further noted, “A lot of what’s happening now can be traced back to this moment, where this argument became normalized that the executive is responsible for keeping the country safe and, for that reason, needs to be able to suspend basic rights and ignore constitutional restraints.” This feeling is a part of larger fears that our country is prone to misunderstanding the tradeoffs between national security and civil liberties.
The impact on those targeted during this time is more in line with the history of attacks against immigrant and refugee communities. Asad Dandia, activist and one of the plaintiffs in the case, describes his personal experience of going undercover with Shamiur Rahman, an undercover NYPD informant. Dandia said, “What I went through was pretty much exactly what we’re seeing students go through now.”
Ongoing Challenges and Future Implications
The plight of immigrant communities and student protesters is forcing us to reckon with essential questions about accountability and justice. Spencer Ackerman emphasized the importance of addressing institutionalized abuses: “If there’s never any accountability for institutionalized abuses, those abuses will continue and they will intensify.” This warning is important for understanding the long-range historical development in which all of these actions are operating.
The war on terror has created a precedent for unlimited presidential authority. This sometimes creates political cover for the administrations to pursue policies they would have otherwise faced overwhelming political opposition. Nikhil Singh highlighted this dynamic: “The former involves slowly chipping away at traditional constitutional rights, while the latter gives you a framework of broad presidential power.”
The ramifications of these activities reach far past affected local jurisdictions. The precedent created when national security is cited as a reason to infringe upon civil liberties can carry over for years, if not permanently. Spencer Ackerman underscored this point: “That is the lesson not just of the war on terror, but of a lot of noxious human history.”
