The Forgotten Side of the Immigration Debate

Originally published in the Baltimore Sun on March 8th, 2013.
————————————————————————

Recently, I returned home from a three-week stay in Guanajuato, Mexico. I lived with a gracious Mexican family, took Spanish classes and had the chance to immerse myself in Mexican culture. Mexican society was beautiful and vibrant — full of ideas, art and religion. Needless to say, the crude stereotypes of drug cartels and kidnappings were hardly relevant or applicable to my experience, or the experience of anyone I met.

As my trip wound down, I said to my host parents, “Por favor, vengan a visitar a mi familia en los Estados Unidos!” I wanted them to come see my house and meet my family in Pennsylvania. They smiled sadly and told me that would not be likely, because of the difficult hurdles and high costs of obtaining tourist visas.

They are right, of course. While it is not impossible, it is much harder for Mexicans than for, say, Canadians and Europeans to travel to the United States — because Mexico is not part of the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. This program allows individuals to travel without a visa to the United States for stays of 90 days or less.

Indeed, I also did not need to apply for a visa to travel to Mexico for my visit. But for most countries in the world, and for not-unfounded reasons, potential visitors need to go through various steps in an often arduous process. They must do an interview at a consulate office abroad; they need to file paperwork that shows they have significant ties that keep them at home; and they need to show proof that they are not likely to become a burden on the public system if they travel to the U.S. In essence, if you are not part of the Visa Waiver Program, the burden of proof is on you.

“It’s kind of a crap shoot [for Mexicans], it takes a long time, and it’s expensive,” said Eleanor Sohnen, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. Whether or not they are ultimately granted a visa, prospective visitors must still pay the nonrefundable $160 application fee, or about 2,037 pesos. “They are often declared ineligible, so they may be dissuaded from even trying at all,” Ms. Sohnen said.

Just how difficult it is for applicants from Mexico (or any other country) to visit the United States is challenging to address, because the State Department does not publish the number of applications it receives for non-immigrant visas, only the number of visas ultimately issued. Thus there is no clear number available to the public of how many applicants were denied.

Back home in the U.S., I now find “comprehensive immigration reform” splashed across the front pages of the major newspapers. They are full of discussions about tighter border controls, crackdowns on employers, paths to citizenship, bipartisan consensus, the DREAM Act, the Latino vote and changing demographics. I read all of it closely to try and understand exactly if and how my host family would be affected by these proposed changes.

It seems to me that the conversation is leaving out those individuals from Mexico who are not looking to come to the United States to work, to study or to live. To the extent that they are included in the national discussion, it’s merely to point out symptoms of a problem we need to address with those who overstay their visas. With all the talk of enhanced security on the borders, I can’t help but remember how easily I was able to cross their border to explore and to learn. I remember how American music frequently blasts on their radios and how my host mom’s favorite television shows were “Bones” and “NCIS” (translated into Spanish). American culture is alive and present in Mexico, but the vast majority of Mexicans that could theoretically visit America will likely never have that chance.

I would think that with our country’s economic woes, there must be something we can do to address our fundamental immigration problems while still encouraging tourism from Mexican citizens. The system as it stands now discourages it.

To be sure, many of the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country entered legally and then overstayed their visas. I recognize this is an enormous and expensive problem. But I find it hard to believe that the only way we can sufficiently limit the number of undocumented workers in the United States is by making it extremely hard for most Mexicans to visit. We certainly have the minds and ingenuity to create a system that ensures those who travel on tourist visas return to their host country, and that eases the process of applying for and obtaining tourist visas.

I am not suggesting Mexico be added now to the Visa Waiver Program but that we do look more closely at the hurdles to travel that many well-intentioned Mexicans face. Include them in the national immigration reform discussion. The increased tourism would economically benefit our country, as would affording others the same freedoms to travel that we so often take for granted.

I’d like to one day welcome into my home my host parents — two hard-working individuals who have no desire to move to America.

Advertisements

The threat to Internet privacy

Originally published in the Baltimore Sun on January 31, 2013.

This week, the United States, Canada, and the 27 countries in the European Union “celebrated” Internet Privacy Day. However, it seems there is little to really celebrate; the past few years have given rise to the largest increase in electronic wiretapping our nation has seen. To be sure, access to information is important for fighting crime and terrorism. However, because the major laws that govern Internet privacy were written in 1986, they fail to protect the modern-day security needs of American citizens. And despite Barack Obama’s campaign promises in 2008 to repeal policies that violate civil liberties, his administration is now not only supporting them but also quickly expanding their presence within the digital world.

The 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (EPCA) was enacted before social networking sites were invented, and before the everyday use of email, Internet and cellphones. Thus, there are many unsettling constitutional quandaries that Congress simply could not have anticipated 27 years ago. For example, the bill says that the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, applies to digital files — but only if they are not given to a third party. Yet third-party entities such as Google, Facebook and Dropbox hold some of our most private communications on their servers. The structure of the law as it is written gives more privacy protection to a yellow memo pad on your nightstand than emails on your Yahoo account.

In September, 2012 the ACLU released a report that stated the number of authorizations the Justice Department received to use “pen register” and “trap and trace” techniques on individuals’ email and network data increased 361 percent between 2009 and 2011. A “pen register” intercepts outgoing data from a phone or email account, while “trap and trace” intercepts incoming data. The ACLU also reports that the Justice Department used these measures to spy on phones 23,535 times in 2009 and 37,616 times in 2011, an increase of 60 percent.

Additionally, Google just released a report stating its company saw requests for information from the federal government increase by 70 percent over the past three years. In more than two-thirds of those cases, Google complied and released some amount of personal data. Sixty-eight percent of the requests Google received were through subpoenas, which typically do not require a judge’s approval. According to Google’s public statements, “Government agencies make requests … seeking information about Google users’ accounts or products. In [our] report, we are generally revealing statistics about demands in criminal investigations.”

To be sure, not all information requests are controversial, since these numbers reflect not only requests for “content” emails but also for basic subscriber information, which is not protected under the Fourth Amendment to begin with. Yet, while big companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft demand warrants for content requests, it is likely that smaller companies with less money for legal battles do not.

Google is not the only company facing a surge of government information requests. Verizon told Congress in 2007 that it received at least 90,000 such requests each year. And Facebook told Newsweek in 2009 that orders were arriving at the company at a rate of 10 to 20 a day. The number of requests and subpoenas has surely increased since then, but ultimately there exists no clear public mechanism to monitor exactly what information the government requests and receives from Internet companies. This is problematic.

The Obama administration has been too quiet on matters regarding digital security, and in situations where officials have spoken out, they’ve advocated for a greater ability to collect information, rather than less. In December, the administration reauthorized an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the government to monitor overseas phone calls and emails without obtaining a court order for each intercept. While the law excludes Americans, there remains a lot of troubling obscurity as to the nature and execution of these powers. Additionally, the FBI has said that revising surveillance laws to make it easier to wiretap people who communicate online rather than by telephone is a top and urgent priority.

The FBI contends it is not seeking new, invasive powers but rather looking to keep its existing powers relevant in the modern age. However, the Obama administration, Congress and even the FBI have to work vigorously to protect the civil liberties and privacy of American citizens. As Internet Freedom Day (Jan. 18) and now Internet Privacy Day (Jan. 28) come and go, it is imperative that we actively seek to establish a clear and constitutional legal framework for the digital era.

The Threat To Internet Privacy

This editorial appeared in the Baltimore Sun on January 31, 2013.

This week, the United States, Canada, and the 27 countries in the European Union “celebrated” Internet Privacy Day. However, it seems there is little to really celebrate; the past few years have given rise to the largest increase in electronic wiretapping our nation has seen. To be sure, access to information is important for fighting crime and terrorism. However, because the major laws that govern Internet privacy were written in 1986, they fail to protect the modern-day security needs of American citizens. And despite Barack Obama’s campaign promises in 2008 to repeal policies that violate civil liberties, his administration is now not only supporting them but also quickly expanding their presence within the digital world.

The 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (EPCA) was enacted before social networking sites were invented, and before the everyday use of email, Internet and cellphones. Thus, there are many unsettling constitutional quandaries that Congress simply could not have anticipated 27 years ago. For example, the bill says that the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, applies to digital files — but only if they are not given to a third party. Yet third-party entities such as Google, Facebook and Dropbox hold some of our most private communications on their servers. The structure of the law as it is written gives more privacy protection to a yellow memo pad on your nightstand than emails on your Yahoo account.

In September, 2012 the ACLU released a report that stated the number of authorizations the Justice Department received to use “pen register” and “trap and trace” techniques on individuals’ email and network data increased 361 percent between 2009 and 2011. A “pen register” intercepts outgoing data from a phone or email account, while “trap and trace” intercepts incoming data. The ACLU also reports that the Justice Department used these measures to spy on phones 23,535 times in 2009 and 37,616 times in 2011, an increase of 60 percent.

Additionally, Google just released a report stating its company saw requests for information from the federal government increase by 70 percent over the past three years. In more than two-thirds of those cases, Google complied and released some amount of personal data. Sixty-eight percent of the requests Google received were through subpoenas, which typically do not require a judge’s approval. According to Google’s public statements, “Government agencies make requests … seeking information about Google users’ accounts or products. In [our] report, we are generally revealing statistics about demands in criminal investigations.”

To be sure, not all information requests are controversial, since these numbers reflect not only requests for “content” emails but also for basic subscriber information, which is not protected under the Fourth Amendment to begin with. Yet, while big companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft demand warrants for content requests, it is likely that smaller companies with less money for legal battles do not.

Google is not the only company facing a surge of government information requests. Verizon told Congress in 2007 that it received at least 90,000 such requests each year. And Facebook told Newsweek in 2009 that orders were arriving at the company at a rate of 10 to 20 a day. The number of requests and subpoenas has surely increased since then, but ultimately there exists no clear public mechanism to monitor exactly what information the government requests and receives from Internet companies. This is problematic.

The Obama administration has been too quiet on matters regarding digital security, and in situations where officials have spoken out, they’ve advocated for a greater ability to collect information, rather than less. In December, the administration reauthorized an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the government to monitor overseas phone calls and emails without obtaining a court order for each intercept. While the law excludes Americans, there remains a lot of troubling obscurity as to the nature and execution of these powers. Additionally, the FBI has said that revising surveillance laws to make it easier to wiretap people who communicate online rather than by telephone is a top and urgent priority.

The FBI contends it is not seeking new, invasive powers but rather looking to keep its existing powers relevant in the modern age. However, the Obama administration, Congress and even the FBI have to work vigorously to protect the civil liberties and privacy of American citizens. As Internet Freedom Day (Jan. 18) and now Internet Privacy Day (Jan. 28) come and go, it is imperative that we actively seek to establish a clear and constitutional legal framework for the digital era.