[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DISCRIMINATION AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF
THE MUSLIM, ARAB, AND SOUTH ASIAN
AMERICAN COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL
RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2022
----------
Serial No. 117-57
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-303 WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., DARRELL ISSA, California
Georgia KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri
AMY RUTKIN, Majority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS,
AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chair
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina, Vice-Chair
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, Ranking
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Member
Georgia TOM McCLINTOCK, California
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas CHIP ROY, Texas
CORI BUSH, Missouri MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BURGESS OWENS, Utah
JAMES PARK, Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 1, 2022
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Steve Cohen, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the State
of Tennessee................................................... 2
The Honorable Mike Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the
State of Louisiana............................................. 3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of New York........................... 4
WITNESSES
Panel I
The Honorable Andre Carson, Member of Congress from the State of
Indiana
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Testimony............................................. 9
The Honorable Judy Chu, Member of Congress from the State of
California
Oral Testimony................................................. 12
Prepared Testimony............................................. 14
The Honorable Pramila Jayapal, Member of Congress from the State
of Washington
Oral Testimony................................................. 16
Prepared Testimony............................................. 19
The Honorable Ilhan Omar, Member of Congress from the State of
Minnesota
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Panel II
Ms. Maya Berry, Executive Director, Arab American Institute
Oral Testimony................................................. 23
Prepared Testimony............................................. 25
Ms. Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Associate Dean for Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion; Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar; and
Clinical Professor of Law; Penn State Law
Oral Testimony................................................. 40
Prepared Testimony............................................. 42
The Honorable Zulfat Suara, Council Member At Large, Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County
Oral Testimony................................................. 54
Prepared Testimony............................................. 56
Ms. Asra Nomani, Vice President for Strategy and Investigations,
Parents Defending Education
Oral Testimony................................................. 62
Prepared Testimony............................................. 64
Mr. Hammad Alam, Staff Attorney and Program Manager, National
Security and Civil Rights, Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans
Advancing Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 81
Prepared Testimony............................................. 84
Mr. Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for
Equal Opportunity
Oral Testimony................................................. 100
Prepared Testimony............................................. 103
Ms. Amrith Kaur Aakre, Legal Director, The Sikh Coalition
Oral Testimony................................................. 107
Prepared Testimony............................................. 110
Ms. Annetta Seecharran, Executive Director, Chhaya Community
Development Corporation
Oral Testimony................................................. 113
Prepared Testimony............................................. 115
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
A study entitled, ``Fulfilling the Promise of Free Exercise For
All: Muslim Prisoner Accommodation in State Prisons,'' Muslim
Advocates, submitted by the Honorable Cori Bush, a Member of
the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
Liberties from the State of Missouri, for the record........... 132
APPENDIX
Materials submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, Chair of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
Liberties from the State of Tennessee, for the record
A statement from Kiran Kaur Gill, Executive Director, the Sikh
American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF)........... 208
A letter from organizations in opposition to the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security 2020 ``Targeted Violence and
Terrorism Prevention'' grant program......................... 214
A statement from Robert S. McCaw, Director of Government
Affairs Department, Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR)....................................................... 221
A statement from Shirin Sinnar, Professor of Law and John A.
Wilson Faculty Scholar, Stanford Law School.................. 229
A statement from Justice For Muslims Collective, South Asian
Americans Leading Together (SAALT), and Muslim Abolitionist
Futures Network.............................................. 241
A statement from the Muslim Community Network (MCN)............ 243
A report entitled, ``Islamophobia in the Mainstream,'' Council
on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)......................... 247
A statement from Farah Brelvi and Asifa Quraishi-Landes,
Interim Co-Executive Directors, Muslim Advocates............. 310
DISCRIMINATION AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF
THE MUSLIM, ARAB, AND SOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES
----------
Tuesday, March 1, 2022
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights,
and Civil Liberties
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Cohen
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Nadler, Cohen, Raskin,
Ross, Johnson of Georgia, Garcia, Bush, Jackson Lee, Jordan,
and Johnson of Louisiana.
Staff present: Aaron Hiller, Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff
Director; John Doty, Senior Advisor and Deputy Staff Director;
David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; Moh Sharma, Director of
Member Services and Outreach & Policy Advisor; Jordan Dashow,
Professional Staff Member; Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; Keenan
Keller, Senior Counsel; Gabriel Barnett, Staff Assistant;
Merrick Nelson, Digital Director; James Park, Chief Counsel for
Constitution; Will Emmons, Professional Staff Member/
Legislative Aide for Constitution; Ella Yates, Minority Member
Services Director; James Lesinski, Minority Counsel; Andrea
Woodard, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Kiley
Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
Mr. Cohen. The Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, will come
to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
I welcome everyone to today's hearing on Discrimination and
the Civil Rights of the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American
Communities.
Before we continue, I would like to remind Members we have
established an email address and distribution list dedicated to
circulating exhibits or other written materials, motions, or
other written matters that Members might want to offer as part
of our hearing today. If you would like to submit those
materials, please send them to the email address that we
previously shared with you, and we will have them distributed.
Finally, I would ask all Members and Witnesses, both those
in person and those appearing remotely, to mute your
microphones when you are not speaking. This will help prevent
feedback, other technical issues, and possible embarrassments.
You may unmute yourself anytime you seek recognition.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
To my knowledge, today's hearing is the first congressional
hearing exclusively focused on the pervasive discrimination
facing the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American communities.
It is the first time since 1986 the House Judiciary has had a
hearing focused on any component of that community. We did have
a hearing earlier this year on Asian hate and we felt it was
very effective. We have had hearings on the ERA, on
reparations, and other first-time hearings. So, the Committee
has been very active in breaking new ground.
The diversity of the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American
community reflects our history as a Nation of immigrants. It
includes Americans who have come here from every part of the
world. That includes Americans of many faiths besides Muslims--
Christians, they didn't start here, either; Hindus; Sikhs;
Buddhists; and Jewish folk.
The history of this community is also one that parallels
the experience of many traditionally marginalized communities
and is deeply rooted in our history. While they are promised
individual liberty and guaranteed the opportunity for a better
life, they are subjected, oftentimes, to discrimination and
stigmatization, both at the hands of sometimes their own
government and some number of their own fellow Americans. We
have seen what African Americans experienced in this country
through the Jim Crow years; it is still going on, but there was
much discrimination sanctioned by the government, Jim Crow
laws.
The history of this community I also of resilience. Their
stories are of those families and individuals who have
struggled for freedom, safety, economic opportunity, or the
right to worship--or all the above--according to the dictates
of their own conscience.
In that sense, the diverse elements of the Muslim, Arab,
and South Asian American community share in common what
Americans all share: The common, fundamental belief that, if
you work hard, contribute to your community, respect the rights
of others as you wish your own rights to be respected, and
place your faith in our Constitution and democracy, you belong
here.
Too often, people are discriminated against because of acts
of other people, and they prejudge people. That has happened
with all minorities that have come to this country.
Even though they live in accordance, the immigrants in this
country, with the fundamental beliefs of our society, society
often stigmatizes immigrants. Muslim, Arab, and South Asian
American communities who are the subject of this hearing have
been subjected to those prejudices and discriminations as
well--that somehow, they are not American. Well, I am not sure
who is American, except for Geronimo and other Native American
Indians.
We have seen the stigma reflected in individual acts of
discrimination and hate. We have seen it continue in the
workplace, discrimination against those who wear religious
headgear or facial hair as a sign of their faith. We have also
seen it reflected in the current rise of nativism and White
supremacy, as individuals or places of worship associated with
these communities are increasingly the targets of vandalism and
violence. These acts of violence, hate, and discrimination are
affront to our sheer values and governing principles, and they
have no place in our society.
In the previous Administration, we had a Muslim ban. The
first Muslim ban was struck down by the courts as
unconstitutional, and it played on prejudices in our community
for the benefit of the politicians who proposed it. A second,
refined Muslim ban was eventually approved by the Supreme
Court, but after much harm was done.
All this should be concerning to all Americans because
those flawed policies are not only discriminatory, but they
also do not make us safer. I hope that we reckon with and
reflect on this history today and come together to ensure this
discrimination and stigmatization of Muslim, Arab, and South
Asian American communities come to an end.
In Memphis, we have a Ramadan dinner, an annual dinner,
where people of all faiths come together. All they do is get
together and talk about commonality of interests, and peace and
harmony, and good deeds and good things. They talk so long that
you get really, really hungry, but it is a beautiful
experience, as everybody comes together and shows that American
values are not in any one particular race or religion, but all
of us.
So, I thank our Witnesses for appearing here today. I would
particularly like to welcome our colleagues, Representatives
Carson, Chu, Jayapal, and Omar, and look forward to their
testimony and that of all the other Witnesses.
I will have to be leaving a bit early because I have a
hearing of the Helsinki Commission with concerns with Ukraine.
At that time, Ms. Ross will take over. As the Subcommittee Vice
Chair, she will take the gavel.
Now, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, my friend, Mr.
Johnson, for his opening statement.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank our Witnesses and our colleagues and
friends for being here this morning. It is, obviously, a very
busy day on the Hill. So, we all have a lot going on. So, I
appreciate your time.
This hearing is scheduled to discuss discrimination and the
civil rights of the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American
communities, as was said. So, let's be clear at the outset,
because I think all of us know and agree that discrimination
based on race or religion is always wrong, and it is
inconsistent with our founding ideals. That is one of the
things that makes us American, I would argue.
Our Nation's promise was boldly asserted in our Nation's
birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, that all
men are created equal and that we are endowed by our Creator
with certain inalienable rights--all of us. America is not
perfect, of course, but it is an exceptional country. We are
always growing; we are learning; we are striving to be that
more perfect union, as the Constitution articulates.
Our Federal civil rights laws recognize these facts,
thankfully. It took a long time to get there, but they do, and
they have for a long, long time. They make clear that disparate
treatment of one individual when compared to another cannot be
based on race, religion, or national origin, for example.
However, some advocates today are pushing for really what
amounts to a drastic departure from our traditional notions of
racism and discrimination and equality, as it existed in
American law for decades and generations. Instead of equality
of treatment and equal opportunity, these advocates are pushing
for what we now call ``equity.''
Rather than nondiscrimination, equity requires explicit
discrimination to achieve an equitable distribution of
outcomes. That is not what has been the tradition here, and it
is not what we are based on. Let me say that again: Rather than
nondiscrimination, equity often requires explicit
discrimination to achieve its ends.
Perversely, these ideas have actually caused discrimination
against some of the communities that are the subject of today's
hearing. At colleges and universities like Harvard, Yale, the
University of North Carolina, Asian applicants, for example,
face significant hurdles unrelated to academic achievement or
merit in the admissions process. Admissions decisions made in
the name of equity have also been seen at prestigious high
schools across the country and in other institutions.
At Thomas Jefferson High School, for example, a magnet
school in Northern Virginia that is considered one of the best
public high schools in the country, admissions policies
implemented with the goal of equity had the effect of reducing
the number of Asian admittees from, roughly, 73 percent to
approximately 54 percent. Just last week, a Federal court
invalidated the new policy because it failed to treat
applicants equally. That is what we are supposed to stand for
here. Similar changes and similar legal challenges are playing
out right now from New York to San Francisco.
As we have this conversation today, I just think we need to
remember that equal treatment and equal opportunity are the
foundation of civil rights laws. The American dream is not a
zero-sum proposition. We need to not hold anyone back, so that
we ensure that everyone can get ahead. The idea is upward
mobility. That is the American dream. We want to broaden the
pathway out of poverty for more people. We want to give more
opportunity. We all agree, I think, on the end goal. We just
have very different ideas on how we are supposed to get there.
So, I look forward to hearing from our Witnesses today. I
also apologize because I have got multiple hearings going on at
the same time. I yield back.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
I now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr.
Nadler, for his opening statement.
Chair Nadler. Thank you. I want to begin by informing my
friend, Mr. Johnson, that the best public high school in the
country is Stuyvesant High School in my district in New York.
Mr. Chair, the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American
communities are an essential part of the American fabric. They
are our neighbors, friends, and coworkers. Some of our
congressional colleagues are Members of these communities, and
I am pleased that we will hear testimony from several of them
today.
According to the Census Bureau, there are over 7 million
Arab Americans and South Asian Americans in the United States,
including over 750,000 in New York City. We know that the true
size of this population is likely even larger because the
Census underreports these groups. Indeed, as we consider our
recent experience with the Census, we know that we must make
changes to better track the Arab American community.
Even without improved Census figures, we know from personal
experience that, from small business owners to healthcare
professionals, to public servants, the Muslim, Arab, and South
Asian American communities are inextricably woven into the
fabric of American society.
It is also important to acknowledge that, while our hearing
focuses on some of the common issues confronting these
communities as a whole, there is as much diversity among these
groups as there is in the rest of America, and they adhere to a
range of faiths, including not only Islam, but also
Christianity, seekers of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Baha'i,
and Judaism, among others.
A large part of what binds them together, unfortunately, is
the shared experience of discrimination targeted at them that
stems from the same poisonous tree. Despite their many
contributions and long histories in this country, these
communities have often been stigmatized as perpetual
foreigners, not only by individuals, but often by the policies
of their own government.
From the nativism confronting those who arrived in the
early waves of migration to this country in the late 18th to
early 19th century to those who were scapegoated for the
effects of more recent political events, like the oil embargo
of the 1970s, Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American
communities have faced discrimination rooted in the idea that
they are somehow less American than others, despite the fact
that their stories are so similar to those of other American
families who arrived here as immigrants.
Looming especially large over these communities over the
past two decades are the continuing impacts, both in terms of
government policy and interpersonal prejudices, of the
September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States. Like all
Americans, Members of the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian
communities recoiled in horror at what happened that day; they
shared in the Nation's anger and sorrow.
Many members of these communities were themselves victims
of the attacks. Unlike other communities, many Muslim, Arab,
and South Asian Americans endured an unjustified wave of
interpersonal discrimination and violence at the hands of their
fellow Americans--the societal hatred and cultural
stigmatization that continues to impact them to this day, a
generation later.
Even more concerning, the legacy of 9/11 and national
security, counterterrorism, and immigration policies continues
to have a disproportionately discriminatory impact on these
communities. As Americans, we should all be concerned when the
government creates and implements national security and law
enforcement policies based on broad-brush assumptions about
whole communities of Americans based on their race, religion,
ethnicity, or national origin, rather than on individualized
suspicion. Such wholesale discriminatory assumptions are not
only unconstitutional, but also un-American to the core, and
they do nothing to make us safer.
Finally, we cannot hold this hearing today without
examining issues of discrimination as part of a broader context
of persistent White supremacist violence and extremism in the
United States, a trend that has taken on a recent and
disturbing revival. The recent rise in hate crimes across the
country has had a significant impact on the Muslim, Arab, and
South Asian community, just as it has had on other minority
communities. From the violence against mosques to the shooting
at the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, to the
vandalization of Hindu temples, hate crimes and hate incidents
continue to significantly target these communities.
For example, according to the Justice Department's 2020
hate crime statistics, there were 87 anti-Arab offenses, 131
anti-Muslim offenses, 94 anti-Sikh offenses, and 11 anti-Hindu
offenses. We also know that all these statistics are
significantly underreported and that they do not include hate
incidents that fall short of the legal definition of hate
crime.
For example, children from these communities are often
subject to bullying, a reflection of the interpersonal
prejudices they face. The Sikh Coalition has reported that 67
percent of Sikh kids who have a turban have been bullied.
The conversation we are having today is long overdue. It
appears that the most recent congressional hearing solely
focused on issues impacting any part of the Muslim, Arab, or
South Asian American communities was held in 1986 in the Crime
Subcommittee. It is long past time to shine a light on the
needs of these communities once again.
I look forward to hearing from today's excellent panel of
Witnesses who will provide insight on the current issues
impacting these communities and how we can better ensure that
they have the protection, justice, equality, and healing that
they deserve.
I thank Chair Cohen for holding this important hearing, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Nadler.
Mr. Jordan, do you have a statement?
Mr. Jordan. No, Mr. Chair. I look forward to hearing from
our Witnesses, from our colleagues.
So, I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you for your attendance.
We welcome our Witnesses and thank them for participating
in today's hearing.
I will now introduce each of the Witnesses, and after each
introduction, we will recognize the Witness for his or her oral
testimony.
Each of your written statements will be introduced into the
record in its entirety, and I ask you to summarize your
testimony in five minutes.
To help you stay within that time, for our Witnesses
testifying in person, there is a timing light on your table.
All of you know what the lights are about. For Witnesses
testifying remotely, you have got to find it on your computer
somewhere, in some kind of a Zoom view on your screen.
Before proceeding with the testimony, I would like to
remind all our Witnesses appearing on both panels that you have
a legal obligation to provide truthful testimony and answers to
this Subcommittee, and any false statement that you make today
may subject you to prosecution under section 1001 of title 18
of the United States Code.
Today, we have two Witness panels. On the first panel, we
are joined by four of our colleagues.
Our first colleague is joining us remotely, Representative
Andre Carson. Congressman Carson represents the 7th
Congressional District of Indiana, which encompassed the city
of Indianapolis, home of the hottest shrimp cocktail sauce in
the world. He is serving his seventh term in Congress.
You are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANDRE CARSON
Mr. Carson. Thank you to my good friend, Chair Cohen. I
would like to thank you and the Full Committee, and my buddy,
the professor, Chair Nadler, for your hard work, as well as the
Ranking Member, in all that you do to protect our Constitution,
and especially for organizing today's hearing.
Muslims across the country, quite frankly, have asked for
this kind of hearing for a very long time. As the longest-
serving, currently, Muslim in Congress, it is a tremendous
honor to testify today about the persistent discrimination face
by Muslim Americans.
I am particularly pleased to join my buddies, my friends,
my congressional colleagues: Representative Judy Chu,
Representative Jayapal, and my sister and friend,
Representative Omar.
As a young, Black teenager, a tall, Black teenager in
Indianapolis, I was targeted, the victim of racial profiling,
while I was standing outside of a mosque. I was arrested and
put behind bars. There was an outcry from the community who saw
the injustice that played out. Fortunately, the charges were
dropped, and I was released and became a police officer years
later. It was my Muslim community and friends that stood with
us and fought for my release.
I learned a very critical lesson that day, that being Black
and being Muslim put someone like me under double scrutiny.
Sometimes that discrimination and profiling can endanger an
individual's safety.
On January 6th, a man drove a truck to the Capitol Complex.
The truck was loaded with an arsenal of explosives and weapons.
The truck also contained a list which included my name and
others because I am a Muslim Member of Congress. The man who
wrote up that list has finally pled guilty and will serve time
for his crimes when he is sentenced next month by a Federal
judge.
My experience mirrors so many other Muslim Americans who
have been threatened, injured, quite frankly, killed, due to
profiling and discrimination. This is a very real threat
throughout our daily lives.
I really hope today's hearing helps to raise more awareness
of the very life-changing impacts of discrimination against
Muslims. There is a notion that the Muslim American community
is a new one in the United States, but the truth is that we
have been long before the Declaration of Independence was
signed. Enslaved Muslims were taken from their homes and
families in Africa and brought to America as slaves. These
Muslims brought their religion with them, and they practiced it
here in the New World.
America's Founders had high ideals about liberty and
freedom, but they were conflicted, too. Many of the Founders
owned slaves, as we know. If you look very closely at George
Washington's plantation home in Mt. Vernon, you will see
evidence of the Muslim slaves who worked for the nation's first
President. If you look among the crosses, you will see
crescents on a number of grave markers.
Historic Muslim leaders like the great Malcolm X and the
great Muhammad Ali are well-known, but far too many other
trailblazers are less known. Never doubt that Muslims have been
in an integral part of building this nation from the very
beginning to the present. We are not new here. Our tapestry has
only grown richer, thanks to the arrival of newer generations
of Muslim immigrants who have come to build on our American
dream. Some fled persecution and some came for educational and
economic opportunities.
Muslims have made substantial contributions in every aspect
of American life, whether it is the field of medicine or
business, law, sports, or entertainment. Unfortunately, the
aftermath of 9/11 drastically changed many people's perception
of us, and those achievements are not acknowledged as they
should be.
Regrettably, our own government contributed to the
discrimination experience by Muslims with intensified profiling
under the guise of national security. As a former law
enforcement officer, someone who has worked in
counterintelligence and homeland security in Indiana, I can
tell you that most officers strive to carry out their oaths to
serve and protect in a very responsible and respectful manner.
September 11, 2001, opened a door to a whole new level of
widespread profiling that grew out of fear of the other.
Federal agencies like TSA and the FBI started a suspect list
and no-fly list, many times just because of the way someone's
name sounded or how it was spelled. Once someone's name was on
those lists; it could be a nightmare to get them removed.
Traveling while a Muslim is challenging. Worshiping while
Muslim is a challenge, too. Law enforcement and intelligence
personnel monitor mosques, conduct questionable surveillance of
Muslim communities. Initiatives that I believe are intended to
preserve our national security, like countering violent
extremism, or CVE, instead, have been misused with
disproportionate targeting of Muslims.
I am honored that Speaker Pelosi appointed me to be the
first Muslim to serve on the House Intel Committee. She did
this, despite the very racist attacks that a Muslim could or
should not be trusted with intelligence data.
So, I thank you for the opportunity for highlighting this
growing community and contributors to our society.
I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Carson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Representative Carson. Excellent
testimony. I appreciate it.
Our next Witness is Representative Judy Chu. Congressman
Chu represents the 27th Congressional District of California,
has served in Congress since--this says 2009. Did you come in
2009? I thought you were here before I got here. That is okay.
[Laughter.]
Since 2011, she has served as Chair of the Congressional
Asian Pacific American Caucus.
Representative Chu, you are recognized for five minutes.
Apparently, your microphone may not be on.
STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY CHU
Ms. Chu. Okay. Well, thank you, Chair Nadler, Ranking
Member Jordan, Subcommittee Chair Cohen, and other
distinguished Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to
join my esteemed colleagues in providing testimony on an
incredibly important issue: Discrimination and civil rights of
Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities in the United States.
I especially want to thank my fellow Members on this panel
for voicing their personal experiences and uplifting the voices
of their communities to the Committee today.
As Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American
Caucus, or CAPAC, I have spent many years advocating for and
defending the civil rights of the entirety of the Asian
American and Pacific Islander, or AAPI, community, which
includes many of the groups named in this hearing.
As we begin today's hearing, we must understand that anti-
Asian hate and discrimination, which has been recently thrust
into the spotlight, is not a new phenomenon. Whether it is the
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Japanese American incarceration
during World War II, or the surveillance of Muslim, Arab, and
South Asian communities after 9/11, our history has shown us
what happens when Asian Americans are used as scapegoats in
times of crisis.
In our more recent history, in the wake of the attacks on
our nation on 9/11, the Muslim, Middle Eastern, Arab, Sikh, and
South Asian communities became subject to an increasing
atmosphere of suspicion, xenophobia, and violence. In fact,
just four days after
9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh father, husband, and brother,
was shot while planting flowers outside his Arizona gas
station, becoming the first victim of a post-9/11 hate crime.
Sadly, he would not be the last.
Since then, the focus on terrorism from abroad also became
a political justification for more prejudice at home. From the
passage of the Patriot Act to lies about terrorists at the
southern border, prejudice has been used to justify cruel
immigration policies, Muslim travel bans, and more in the past
few years alone. What is even worse is that this rhetoric has
actually inspired new domestic terrorist threats and innocent
lives have been lost as a result.
This prejudice took a concrete form in the initial days of
the Trump Administration, when Donald Trump announced his first
Muslim ban. What followed were years of pain for families
deliberately separated by this ban, forced to miss weddings,
funerals, births, graduations, and more.
While President Biden rescinded this ban on his first day
in office, we must ensure that no President has the power to
create a ban like this, based solely on religion and
xenophobia, ever again. I am proud that the House passed my
bill, along with Representatives Lofgren, Carson, Omar, and
Beyer, the NO BAN Act, which repeals all iterations of the
Muslim ban and ensures that no future President can
unilaterally ban an entire group based on their religion.
The Muslim ban wasn't just cruel for its personal impact on
families, it was also dangerous in the way it promoted fear of
Muslims, which we know leads to more violence. As we have seen
with the increase in anti-Asian hate over the past two years,
with more than 10,000 incidents since March of 2020, creating
fear and fostering prejudice against one group can lead to the
harassment, suffering, and even death of innocents.
That is why I am so proud that the bipartisan Jabara-Heyer
NO HATE Act, which I led with Representative Don Beyer and
others, was included in the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, which was
signed into law last May. This law provides local organizations
and local law enforcement with the resources and training to
improve hate crimes tracking and reporting, something we know
is necessary in addressing the sharp rise in hate crimes
against all minority communities.
Nobody, whether you are Asian, South Asian, Arab, Muslim,
Sikh, or any other community, should be targeted simply because
of their ethnicity or religion. As Chair of CAPAC, I look
forward to working with all my colleagues on this panel and so
many of the groups represented today to continue the work of
combating discrimination against all our communities.
[The statement of Ms. Chu follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Representative Chu.
I will now pause for a few minutes because we have
technical difficulties--not related to your microphone or your
testimony. I think your testimony was--I guess it was heard.
Was it? You were a YouTube star, but not a Zoom participant.
[Laughter.]
So, we are trying to synchronize those two groups.
We will take a brief recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Cohen. Apparently, technical difficulties have been
dispensed with.
Our next Witness--and we will go in the order of
seniority--is Representative Pramila Jayapal. Congressman
Jayapal represents the 7th Congressional District of
Washington. I believe it is the city of Seattle--coffee and a
big tower, and boats and salmon.
[Laughter.]
She is currently serving in her third term. She is the
Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and, also, Chairs
the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Asian Pacific
American Caucus and has been a dynamic leader in this
particular Congress especially.
You are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. PRAMILA JAYAPAL
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Chairs Cohen and Nadler, Ranking
Members Johnson and Jordan, and Members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important
hearing with my wonderful colleagues.
I sit before you as the first and only South Asian American
woman elected to the House of Representatives.
September 11, 2001, forever changed what it means to be a
Muslim, Arab, or South Asian American in America. On September
11th, a friend on the East Coast woke me up at 5:00 in the
morning, calling to ask if I had heard what had happened. I had
just moved into a new home. I had to unpack my very tiny
television, and I sat amidst boxes watching in horror as the
first images of the Twin Towers played on repeat. I knew that
life would never be the same again for people who look like us
sitting at this table.
In the days and weeks after, I received fearful calls from
individuals in the Sikh, Muslim, and Arab American community
who were being attacked for wearing turbans or hijabs. I heard
from moms and dads who were afraid to send their kids to
school--a fear that I shared for my own child. For the first
time since I had come to America at the age of 16, I had to
think about whether to wear my Indian clothes outside and I
didn't want to let my child leave the house.
When I left home, I literally could feel the tension in my
body, like I was being constantly watched, and I worried that I
would be attacked or that someone would yell hateful things at
me, simply for being who I am.
Others had it far, far worse. On September 13th, a man
armed with a gun and a tank of gasoline went to a mosque in
North Seattle, trying to attack people as they left evening
prayers and setting a car on fire.
A few days later, the first Sikh American, Balbir Singh
Sodhi, was murdered in Mesa, Arizona, simply because his
attacker thought that he looked like Osama bin Laden and should
be held responsible for the attacks.
Every single day, I received calls about Muslim women who
had been harassed on the streets; women having their hijabs
torn off; taxi drivers who were beaten for being Sikh American;
Muslim families who withdrew their children from school because
they were too afraid to get on the bus or go out in public.
It didn't help when, days after the attacks, President
George W. Bush proclaimed, ``Either you are with us or you are
with the terrorists.'' For many Arab, Muslim, and South Asian
communities, this stark language seemed directed at us, and the
words cemented division and had an enormous psychological
impact on our communities.
This ``us versus them'' rhetoric sparked terrible policy
decisions that continue to impact the civil rights and civil
liberties of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities, as well
as other communities. Cloaked in national security, the
President and Congress advanced policies and laws intentionally
designed to criminalize, surveil, police, and deny immigration
benefits to these communities.
Just 10 days after 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act,
with little regard for the enormous problems that it created
for civil liberties and privacy protections for all Americans,
but, in particular, for those most likely to be targeted--many
provisions which still remain and have been used against MASA
communities.
There are some beautiful things that come out of crisis as
well. I ended up founding a nonprofit civil rights organization
named One America to fight the backlash targeting Muslim, Sikh,
and South Asian communities, and ended up organizing immigrants
across the board for justice for the next decades.
In the months and years that followed, we successfully
defeated government efforts to deport about 5,000 Somalis from
across the country; we fought back against special registration
and detention of 1,200 Arab and Muslim men; we defended Muslim
and Somali businesses from unjust attempts by the government to
put them out of business. We held hearings to tell our stories,
including a 2003 Senate hearing, held at the request of late
Senator Ted Kennedy.
I am proud that out of tremendous crisis came courage and
resilience of our communities, but I am also aware of how much
work there is still to do. I still have constituents who are
trying to get their names off discriminatory lists created
after 9/11 that have prevented them from getting benefits that
they should have.
Twenty years later, here in Congress, I was proud to
introduce a resolution on the anniversary of 9/11, with my
colleagues, Representatives Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Judy
Chu. Our resolution, H.Res. 629, recognizes the climate of hate
that Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Sikh
communities have experienced since September 11th and calls for
action to address the lasting impacts of 9/11.
I hope this hearing becomes one step of many to examine
and, ultimately, dismantle 9/11 era policies that have
perpetuated and exacerbated discrimination against these
communities.
I thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this very important
hearing.
I yield back.
[The statement of Ms. Jayapal follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cohen. Thank you for your testimony and your work on
these issues over the years.
Our last Witness on our first panel is Representative Ilhan
Omar. She represents the 5th Congressional District of
Minnesota, also known as the home of Prince.
[Laughter.]
It includes Minneapolis with the Twins and a big mall and
surrounding suburbs.
She was sworn into office in January 2019, making her the
first African refugee to become a Member of Congress; the first
woman of color to represent the State of Minnesota, and one of
the first two Muslim American women elected to Congress.
Representative Omar, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. ILHAN OMAR
Ms. Omar. Good morning, Chair, Ranking Member, and
distinguished Members of this Committee. Thank you for holding
this very important hearing.
I am no stranger to discrimination, hate speech, or threats
of violence against my family and myself, simply because of my
identity. As a Black, visibly Muslim woman who came to this
country as a refugee, I have dealt with racist, xenophobic,
bigoted comments and threats all my life. Even being elected to
offices hasn't stopped me from being ``othered.'' I have
received vile remarks from the public, as well as Members of
Congress.
Sadly, I am just one of millions of Americans across this
country who have experienced discrimination and attacks. In
recent years, we have witnessed increased attacks on Asian
Americans, immigrant communities, religious minority and
spaces, and that is only a fraction of violence.
It is demoralizing to watch acts of such blatant racism and
xenophobia--all carried out with complete disregard for the
humanity of others. Sadly, our government has a history of
sanctioning such hatred and violence.
In 1798, President John Adams signed into law a set of four
bills collectively known as the Alien Sedition Act. These four
bills increased the residency requirement for American
citizenship from five years to 14 years, authorizing the
President to imprison or deport foreign nationals considered
dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States and
restricting speech critical of the government. These laws were
designed to restrict the activities of foreign-born Americans,
silence minorities, and weaken freedom of speech and the press.
By 1801, three of the Acts were repealed due to their
unconstitutional nature or allowed to expire. However, the
Alien Enemies Act remains in effect to this day, even though it
is unconstitutional, as the other three. The Alien Enemies Act
allows the United States President to determine how and if all
foreign nationals should be apprehended, restrained, secured,
and removed in the event of a war. There are a number of
troubling and scary aspects of this law.
First, ``war'' is not defined in this Act, allowing it to
be loosely interpreted.
Second, this Act completely bypasses the judicial process,
ignoring due process and the right of appeal.
Lastly, foreign national refers to anyone who is not a U.S.
citizen, even if they might be a lawful resident in the United
States--meaning, even if you have lived in the United States
legally for 20 years, built a community, started a family, for
whatever reason, not have gained citizenship, you would be
subject to apprehension, detention, or deportation without due
process.
I introduced the Neighbors Not Enemies Act to repeat this
unjust law. While many might say this 18th century law is
outdated and has no impact on modern history, I would like to
remind you that, less than 100 years ago, the United States
invoked this Act during World War II to retain and,
subsequently, deport Japanese, German, and Italian immigrants.
Just last week, we marked the 80th anniversary of the Executive
Order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt, which led to mass
incarceration of nearly 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry.
In the years since, the United States has recognized
injustices done to the Japanese Americans, and subsequently,
apologized for the cruel internment. Although we promised to
never walk down that dark path again, we failed to keep that
promise. During the 2016 election, President Trump used the
Alien Enemies Act as a justification for the Muslim ban.
Administration after Administration have continuously
demonstrated the danger of unchecked executive power and the
stain it has on our country decades and centuries later.
Whether it is justifying putting hundreds of thousands of
people in internment camps, attacking Muslim immigrants and
refugees, or separating families at the border, the Alien
Enemies Act dangerously permits the President extreme executive
powers to unjustly target an entire group of foreign nationals.
This outdated and sinful, bigoted law is an offense to our
nation's values. We must learn from historic mistakes, based on
fear of the other, and embrace a system of freedom and equality
by passing the Neighbors Not Enemies Act.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much.
That completes and concludes our first panel. I thank our
four colleagues for joining with us and giving us their
testimony, and their work on these issues. We hope to be able
to come up with some legislation. Thank you.
Before we go to the second panel, Ms. Ross will take the
Chair.
I just want to express all the Members of the next panel
are equally important and valuable, and all are very much
appreciated.
Particularly, I am going to miss the opportunity to
introduce Ms. Zulfat Suara, because she is from Nashville,
Tennessee, and that is a city I have spent many years in. It is
in my State. It is the home of Vanderbilt University, where I
want to college; Tennessee State Senate, where I was sentenced
to for 24 years before I was allowed out and given a parole
here in the Congress.
[Laughter.]
You are very welcome, and we look forward to your
testimony.
Ms. Ross, you are on.
Ms. Ross. [Presiding.] We will give them a second to set up
the panel.
Okay. Welcome, everyone. Our first Witness on the second
panel is Maya Berry. Ms. Berry is the Executive Director of the
Arab American Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan national
civil rights advocacy organization founded to nurture and
encourage direct participation in political and civic life, to
mobilize a strong, educated, and empowered Arab American
community.
She previously served as the Legislative Director for House
Minority Whip David Bonior, where she managed the Congressman's
legislative strategy and developed policies on international
relations, human rights, immigration, civil rights and civil
liberties, and trade. She also serves as the Co-Chair of the
Hate Crime Task Force at their Leadership Conference for Civil
and Human Rights.
Ms. Berry, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MAYA BERRY
Ms. Berry. Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair Cohen and
Vice Chair Ross, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the
Committee. You have convened an important hearing today because
it is the first congressional hearing to examine the civil
rights of communities most directly impacted by post-9/11
national security policies and discrimination.
For my community, it comes nearly 36 years after another
historic hearing of the House Judiciary Committee in 1986
entitled, ``Ethically Motivated Violence Against Arab
Americans.'' The impetus for the hearing was the surge in
violent hate crimes targeting Arab Americans, including the
tragic 1985 murder of civil rights advocate, Alex Odeh.
The climate was dangerous enough for FBI Director William
Webster to warn that ``Arab individuals or those supporting of
Arab points of view have come within the zone of danger.'' The
importance of a hearing providing congressional oversight for a
particular community is clear, but the hearing would also go on
to serve as one of the key drivers of the passage of the Hate
Crimes Statistics Act of 1990.
Like 1986, we have the opportunity today to make this
hearing a beginning, a first step, for much-needed reforms that
will protect our Constitution, our civil rights, and our civil
liberties--the very charge of this Subcommittee.
This hearing brings together three individual communities,
though some overlap, and we have some meaningful shared
experiences, and a lot of solidarity--lest we not forget that
the first victims of deadly hate crimes post-9/11 were members
of the Sikh community. However, the single most unifying factor
is that our government has securitized its relationship with
all of us by viewing Arab Americans, American Muslims, and
Asian Americans through a lens of national security. The
relationship becomes one of mitigating external threats,
instead of communities deserving of service and protection, as
any other group of Americans. As a securitized community, our
fellow Americans have come to view us differently, too--
sometimes have even targeted us for discrimination and bias-
motivated hate.
Nearly three years ago, a man was sentenced to five years
in prison, convicted of a hate crime for threatening the life
of AAI President James Zogby and our staff. He is the third man
to go to jail for threatening us since 9/11.
Most do not accept that we got here because of animus
towards any of these communities, but, rather, because we have
to keep America safe in what is commonly referred to as ``the
War on Terror.'' Our civil rights and civil liberties being
violated in the name of national security, well, that is often
used as a necessary price to pay for public safety.
From the Patriot Act and its mass surveillance to the
Discrimination Special Registry Program of NSEERS; to rampant
profiling; to watchlists of Americans of undetermined size
without a redress process; to shockingly ignorant and bigoted
FBI training material; to the NYPD spying program; to harmful
and ineffective countering violent extremism programs; to
flying while Arab or Muslim getting added to the lexicon of
driving while black; to denaturalization programs; or finally,
to the Muslim ban, our country has put in place practices that
have violated fundamental rights and shown a lack of respect
for our Constitution.
Let's pause for a moment and consider some historical
context. In 1980, Congress established a commission to examine
the causes and impact of the shameful incarceration of Japanese
Americans during World War II. They found the infamous
Executive Order 9066 was not born of military necessity, but,
rather, that, ``The broad historical causes which shaped those
decisions were: Race prejudice, war hysteria, and the failure
of political leadership.''
Eighty years after this astonishing violation of the rights
of nearly 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent, it is useful
for us to consider those three factors the report emphasized
when examining the topic of our hearing today.
In the case of Arab Americans, the prejudice is evident in
the depiction of my community from entertainment to news, and
the polling we conduct of American attitudes, regrettably,
bears that out.
Second, we can easily arrive at quote, ``war hysteria,''
unquote, through a war on terror that will not end until we
defeat terrorism, and as such, can be held as permanent.
Finally, we have seen the failure of leadership in at least
two different ways.
(1) When our elected officials so fear by failing to speak out
against hate and bigot, and instead, traffic in it; and
(2) when our elected officials fail to provide the necessary
oversight to prevent government abuses.
Over the course of the last 20 years, the Federal
government's counterterrorism authorities have expanded
significantly. My written testimony offers some specific
recommendations. Now, 20 years since 9/11, is the right time to
revisit, so that we can course correct and pass legislation
that provides security for all of us, without compromising the
rights of any of us.
The protection of the fundamental rights of securitized
communities like Arab Americans is certainly at stake, but so
is our ability to protect the constitutional rights of all
Americans and to maintain a free society.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Berry follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Ms. Berry.
Before we take our next Witness, we are going to have
another brief technical recess. There is something going on
with the Witness microphones, and we want everyone to hear you.
So, just briefly. Thank you for your patience.
[Recess.]
Ms. Ross. Okay. See, that one was quick. You are charmed.
[Laughter.]
Our next Witness is Shoba Wadhia. She is the Associate Dean
for diversity, equity, and inclusion; Samuel Weiss Faculty
Scholar; and Clinical Professor of Law at Pennsylvania State
University School of Law.
Her research focuses on the role of prosecutorial
discretion and in immigration law, and the intersections of
race, national security, and immigration. She teaches courses
in immigration and asylum and refugee law. Prior to joining
Penn State, Professor Wadhia was Deputy Director for Legal
Affairs at the National Immigration Forum in Washington, DC.
She received her J.D. from Georgetown University Law
Center, where she served as a senior notes and comments editor
of the Georgetown Immigration Law Journal. She received her
A.B. with honors from Indiana University.
Professor Wadhia, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF SHOBA SIVAPRASAD WADHIA
Ms. Wadhia. Chair Cohen, Ranking Member Johnson, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify at today's hearing.
Discrimination in immigration law is deeply rooted in our
history, as seen with the Chinese Exclusion Act and a national
origin quota that effectively blocked immigration from Asia.
Only in 1965, during the civil rights era, did President
Johnson sign a bill amending the immigration statute to end
national origin quotas.
The 1965 Act altered the racial landscape of the United
States and opened doors for families like mine. My parents were
raised in India, and after their marriage, moved to the United
States. My father worked at the Dayton, Ohio VA as a physician
from the beginning of the AIDS crisis. My mother entered the
United States as the spouse of a green card holder.
While the 1965 Act yields a more facially neutral
immigration statute, discrimination in Muslim, Arab, and South
Asian communities endured. One sharp example is September 11th,
2001. I was working as an immigration attorney in downtown DC.
On my way home soon after, I saw spray painted on a wall,
``Deport Arabs.''
In the post-9/11 era, executive branch agencies used
national security as a basis for creating new immigration
policies that targeted Muslim, Arab, and South Asian
communities.
One significant 9/11 policy change was known as the
National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERS. It
was rolled out in waves--first, in a speech by the former
Attorney General, and later, in several publications in the
Federal Register.
The most controversial piece of NSEERS was a call-in policy
that drew more than 80,000 men from Muslim-majority countries
to local immigration offices for lengthy interrogations,
fingerprints, and photographs. I recall vividly standing in
front of the local migration Office during NSEERS and
conducting know-your-rights sessions about the program inside
of mosques.
NSEERS failed as a national security program because it
relied on a premise that singling out Muslim males residing in
the United States would somehow improve national security. The
residual effects of NSEERS were striking. Nearly 14,000 Notices
to Appear, or charging documents, were issued to those who
complied with the program, triggering removal proceedings for
the same. Others subject to NSEERS were denied green cards
years later. Only in December 2016 did DHS issue a final rule
ending the regulatory framework of NSEERS.
History repeats itself. Seven days after his inauguration,
former President Trump signed an Executive Order which
suspended for 90 days the entry of foreign nationals form seven
countries with Muslim populations of over 90 percent. The
Executive Order was based on section 212(f) of the immigration
statute, which allows the President to suspend the entry of
noncitizens if their entry is detrimental to the interests of
the United States.
Working with families impacted by the various bans brought
me closer to human suffering. Note, it was individuals in a
qualifying relationship like my own parents who were being
turned away because of where they were born. That is why my co-
counsel and I argued in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court
how the ban ushers our nation into a pre-1965 era. More than
9,000 spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens were
impacted, creating one of the greatest untold stories of family
separation.
More than 50 years after the 1965 Act and 20 years after 9/
11, immigration laws continue to target MASA communities, as
well as broader communities of color, often because of policy
choices made by the executive branch, but also due to
congressional inaction.
History will continue to repeat itself unless we do
something different, and that requires a rejection of
categorical exclusions based on national security, a
recognition of an already robust statute, and an immigration
policy that is guided by principles of family unity, racial
equity, and compassion.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Wadhia follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much for that testimony,
Professor.
Our next Witness is Zulfat Suara. Ms. Suara is a Council
Member at large of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and
Davidson County, Tennessee, a position she was first elected to
in 2019. She is the first Muslim elected to the council, the
first Muslim woman elected to office in Tennessee, and the
first Nigerian immigrant woman elected to any office in the
United States.
In addition to serving on the Nashville and Davidson County
council, she is Executive Director of grants and contracts at
Maharry Medical College. Among many accolades, she was named
the 2018 Muslim Policy Advocate of the Year by the Islamic
Society of North America and received an award for outstanding
service to human rights from the Tennessee Human Rights
Commission.
Council Member Suara, you are recognized for five minutes,
and welcome.
STATEMENT OF ZULFAT SUARA
Ms. Suara. Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Cohen, Vice Chair Ross, Chair Nadler,
Ranking Members, and other Members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to address you this morning.
My name is Zulfat Suara, as said, and I'm a Council Member
at large in Nashville. Prior to my election, I served for six
years as Chair of the American Muslim Advisory Council, AMAC, a
statewide organization that works in partner with some the
community to civic-ended means, community building, and media
relations. AMAC was formed in 2012 following a community
mobilization against the anti-Sharia bill and the opposition to
the building of the Murfreesboro Mosque.
Tennessee is home to large populations of Mexicans,
Somalis, Arabs, Saudis, and many more. Despite this rich
diversity, our State and in our country remain heavily
polarized. There are increased attacks on Asian Americans and
the demonization of Muslims continues to grow. This hatred is
fueled by actions, or lack thereof, by Federal, State, and
local elected officials to protect our rights. It is
cultivating environments where my youngest daughter is called a
terrorist by her classmates.
I am, therefore, standing before you as a mother, advocate,
and elected official, and mostly and above all, an American
citizen, to share with you, based on my experiences and
interactions, some of the issues facing the Muslim communities.
On the Federal level, issues such as surveillance and
profiling have negatively impacted our community. From New York
to California, Federal agencies have violated the privacy of
Muslims within their places of worship, an injustice that was,
essentially, taken up to the U.S. Supreme Court. It also
extends to private groups, exemplified by the case in Ohio when
an anti-Muslim hate group individual reported on Muslims,
surveilling in his own community. Furthermore, TSA backroom
interrogations, no travel watchlists, and extra searches are
just some of the ways this discrimination raises its ugly head
while flying.
From multiple directions, our community continues to have
our liberties unprotected and infringed on. Certain
marginalized groups such as ours is unjust and is reflective of
the discrimination many minority groups face in this country.
Unfortunately, our children are not immune to this
discrimination. Our girls do not have the same access of rights
in playing sports. In September 2020, a Muslim girl in
Tennessee, Najah Aqeel, was disqualified from a volleyball game
because of her hijab. The rule enforced reduced our religious
head scarf to a mere device that could only be worn with
special permission. Thankfully, due to her courage, all
Tennessee athletes and all-American volleyball players can now
compete like others while wearing religious headdress without
prior permission. Najah's victory was for volleyball. There are
still other sports in this country where Muslim girls are not
able to participate without giving up their religious beliefs.
Finally, no single policy impacted us more than the Muslim
ban. It was discriminatory, tore families apart, and further
``otherized'' American Muslims. We are grateful that President
Biden lifted the ban, but there are still lasting implications
that are yet to be resolved.
When it comes to discrimination policy, things are worse at
the State level. What started with Tennessee's anti-Sharia bill
in 2011 has progressed to relentless attempts to pass other
discriminatory bills to marginalize our communities. Attempts
to ban lessons in Islamic schools, claims of Islamic
indoctrination, the No-Go Zone bill, and more. While most of
these bills failed, they continually send a message that our
presence and our beliefs are not welcome.
Finally, there is just a blatant double-standard in the
response to acts of domestic terrorism. On Christmas Day 2020,
a bomb was detonated in downtown Nashville. It was an event
that shook our city. While I am grateful to the heroism of our
local police officers; it was perplexing that they had been
notified the year before about concerns that the perpetrator
was building bombs. His residence was never investigated
because he was not at home. No law enforcement ever came back
to reinvestigate this lead. Had this man been a Muslim, his
door would have been kicked down and his community attacked. It
is this same double standard that on the national level framed
the interrogants in this capital as legitimate political
discourse.
This is my home, my country. I am invested in it, and I
have invested in its welfare. My heart breaks every time there
is a discriminatory bill and action by those in authority.
Muslims, Arabs, and South Asian Americans have contributed
greatly to this country. We are not asking for preferential
treatment. All we ask is to be treated with the same respect
and dignity and afforded the same rights as all Americans. I
fervently hope that the outcome of this hearing will do just
that.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Suara follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Council Member Suara, and
thank you for your service to your community.
Our next Witness is Asra Nomani. She is the Vice President
for strategy and investigations for Parents Defending
Education. She is a former Wall Street Journal correspondent
and has written for The Washington Post, New York Times, Slate
Magazine, and Time Magazine about Islam. She has spoken about
women's rights in Islam on CNN, PBS, NPR, and the BBC. She has
been an advocate for moderation in Islam. She previously was a
professor in the practice of journalism at Georgetown
University.
Ms. Nomani, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ASRA NOMANI
Ms. Nomani. Thank you so much. Thank you to all the
distinguished lawmakers that are here today.
Just across the Potomac River, on Sunday, I stood with a
group of parents on a back deck, and we were celebrating our
triumph against racism, against systemic racism. It wasn't
against a White supremacist organization that we had won. We
had defeated racism by the 12 school board members in Fairfax
County Public Schools--all endorsed, alas, by the Democratic
Party.
My testimony is a warning cry about a new racism that is
occurring in the United States today. It is targeting South
Asians, Muslims, and Arabs, along with many other people. So,
many people are now being impacted by divisive ideology that is
in our schools also. It replaces the old hierarchy of human
value with a new hierarchy of human value. Neither is
acceptable. Federal authorities, State and local authorities,
are subjecting us to surveillance, harassment, and criminal
prosecution, when we, as parents, stand up to this new racism.
Born in India and raised in West Virginia, I moved to
Northern Virginia in 2008 because I thought that the State had
now voted for President Obama and it was now progressive enough
for a minority like myself. I moved there as a single mother
with my son just five years old. In Virginia he grew up. In
2017, my son learned that he had gained admission to Thomas
Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. It was the
realization of the American dream for us.
Then, on June 7, 2020, we received an email from the White
principal at the school, and she told us--the mostly Asian,
mostly immigrant parents and students at the school--that we
needed to check our privileges. She told us that we had to
change admission to Thomas Jefferson High School because she
wanted a different type of minority. Of course, we want all
students to succeed. Of course. All of a sudden, our parents
were on the wrong side of Brown.
Let me share with you some of the names from our student
directory. They are names of the types of people that this
hearing is concerned about, last names like Singh, Patel,
Abdul, Malik, and then, my name, Nomani. What are our
privileges?
Soverna Detta, a mother, came here with dollars in her
pocket to study in Tennessee. Yu Yan Ju, she stood in Tiananmen
Square for human rights, and then, when she read this email
from the principal, just had traumatic flashbacks to that
moment when she was a child and her teacher made her stand up
and take off the red scarf that she had received as a symbol of
her privilege in the Communist Party.
School board members, activists, policymakers started
calling us slurs like ``White-adjacent,'' ``resource
hoarders,'' toxic, racist. I had never before in my decades of
my life in the United States experienced so much aggression and
hostility against us.
In one text, a school board member said, ``We know that
this policy is anti-Asian, LOL''--laughing outloud. We all know
in this hearing that racism is not a laughing matter.
Guess what? Our brave parents came together, and we created
an organization called Coalition for TJ. We went to court with
the lawyers of Pacific Legal Foundation, who fight for civil
rights. Guess what? Just this Friday, Friday afternoon, we got
an email. We won. We won in protecting our families from the
racism that is now being perpetuated in our school system. This
is a significant victory. This is huge. This is what is a
national security issue today, as we compete against China.
How did this happen? How did we go from this ideology of
critical race theory that says that we must look at all society
through the lens of race, and then become this, ``How To Be An
Anti-Racist,'' in which this ideologue says that we can only--
we can only; can you imagine this? Correct past discrimination
by present discrimination? What kind of a country is this? That
is not the kind of country that my father came to: Critical
race theory in education. That is why we have this at TJ. Then
they are reaching for our little babies. Woke baby, anti-racist
baby, what are these concepts? These are concepts for racism.
Ms. Ross. Ms. Nomani, your time has expired.
Ms. Nomani. Thank you. We, the families, we are parents,
momma bears and papa bears, we do not want to be called
domestic terrorists when we are protecting our baby cubs. We
must all stand together for our country.
Thank you so much. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Nomani follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Ross. Yes, thank you for your testimony.
The Witnesses will be reminded that they need to keep to
five minutes because we have so many Witnesses and we want to
get all of you in. So, thank you so much for that.
We will now move to Hammad Alam, a staff attorney and
program manager for national security and civil rights at Asian
Americans Advancing Justice, Asian Law Caucus.
Mr. Alam's work at the Asian Law Caucus focuses on
protecting communities, and, in particular, Arab, Middle
Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian communities, from government
surveillance and policing in the name of national security and
counterterrorism. His work also includes advocating for an end
to surveillance and policing programs that disproportionately
and unjustly target communities on the basis of their religion,
ethnicity, and national origin.
Mr. Alam has a law degree from the University of
California, Los Angeles, School of Law, and a master's in
theological studies from Harvard Divinity School.
Mr. Alam, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HAMMAD ALAM
Mr. Alam. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Cohen, Ranking
Member Johnson, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
convening this important hearing and inviting me to testify
today.
For decades, the Federal government has unjustly and
disproportionately subjected AMEMSA--Arab, Middle Eastern,
Muslim, and South Asian--communities to persistent profiling,
surveillance, and criminalization. These policies have created
a climate of fear and distrust among the communities, and they
have inflicted perhaps irreparable damage--compelling these
communities to chill their free expression, the languages they
speak, the practices of their religious faiths, and so much
more.
Today, I share some examples of the destructive impacts of
Federal government policy on AMEMSA communities to demonstrate
how so-called counterterrorism policies and practices have
unjustly marked community members as, quote, ``extremists,
terrorists, and national security threats,'' unquote, based on
nothing more than their religion, ethnicity, race, or national
origin.
I start with experiences from my own community of southern
California, where I grew up. There, Muslim community members
unknowingly welcomed an FBI informant posing as a new convert
to Islam. The informant canvassed half a dozen mosques across
southern California under the direction of FBI agents, but the
agents instructed him that the goal was to gather as much
information on Muslims, and only Muslims.
As part of the operation, the informant befriended several
community members, at times making explosive references to
violence, in an effort to elicit a similar response he did not
receive. Rather, in an ironic turn of events, community leaders
reported the informant to the FBI. Their complaints went
unanswered, however, because the individual was an informant
the FBI themselves had planted into the community.
Several years later, community members learned about the
FBI's activities in their sacred places of worship. The impact
was severe. Congregants became fearful of attending prayer or
mosque events. Many were afraid to make new friends or welcome
newcomers. Some even questioned their existing friends and
wondered if they, too, were informants. As Imam Yassir Fazaga,
an Imam of one of the mosques targeted by the informant, has
said, ``Not only did the spying break the trust between the
community and the FBI, but broke the trust within the
community.''
The impacts of the FBI surveillance in southern California
can still be felt today. I am, however, proud to say that our
community did not stay silent. We sued the FBI, and the case
FBI v. Fazaga is now before the Supreme Court. The case is an
example of the U.S. Government's disregard for the civil rights
of Muslim communities.
It is worth noting that no terrorism-related convictions,
let alone arrests, resulted from the FBI's operations in
southern California. The facts seen in that case, however, are
part of a broader pattern and history of government
surveillance targeting AMEMSA communities for decades.
Around the same time the FBI informant was operating in
southern California, the FBI was also gathering information on
Bay Area Muslims under the ostensibly friendly guise of,
``mosque outreach.'' Muslim communities granted the FBI access
to their communities, believing the FBI when they said they
were merely protecting communities at risk of hate crimes.
Instead of receiving protection, these communities fell
victim to FBI monitoring. Their sermons, conversations in
prayer halls, and other persons under protected speech were all
recorded by the FBI, which marked the records they compiled as
``positive intelligence.''
Our communities should not be burdened with the stain of
guilt by association. Being Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, or
South Asian, among other markers, cannot be the primary
indicator of potential criminality. This is unacceptable and
unlawful.
Policymakers must understand that our communities have been
treated as suspects simply for being who they are. While
interpersonal acts of violence and increase in bias-based
prejudice, xenophobia, and Islamophobia are important to
consider, what is so often missed in these conversations is how
the Federal government itself has contributed to and
exacerbated the very biases that lead to the harms these
communities face.
So, if we are, indeed, serious about civil rights, civil
liberties, and our Constitution, we must examine more deeply
the bias, suspicion, and distrust of AMEMSA communities that
underlie the so-called national security and counterterrorism
infrastructure, both here and abroad. A necessary part of that
is also examining our government's role in contributing to the
culture that justifies it.
For the communities subjected to such systematic and
persistent surveillance and policing, the harms are long-
lasting and perhaps irreversible. I know this because I have
been, and remain, a part of the same communities that have been
and are still vulnerable to the Federal government's
surveillance operations, merely on the basis of our religious
identities.
I prayed at the very mosques that were at the center of the
FBI's surveillance in southern California. My family, my
friends, my classmates, all of us have prayed at Imam Fazaga's
mosque. We broke bread there. We worshiped there and celebrated
moments of joy and grief there. After learning that our trust
and sacred spaces were violated, our communities, and perhaps
our nation, may never truly be the same.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here and to
share these stories with you today. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Alam follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Alam.
Our next Witness is Devon Westhill. He is the President and
General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity.
Immediately prior to his current role, Mr. Westhill served as
the top civil rights official at the United States Department
of Agriculture in the Administration of President Donald J.
Trump.
He has also worked at the United States Department of
Labor, at the Federalist Society, and as a criminal trial
lawyer in private practice.
Mr. Westhill earned his B.A. in philosophy from the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill--go, Heels--and his
J.D. from the University of Florida.
Mr. Westhill, you're recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DEVON WESTHILL
Mr. Westhill. Thank you very much.
Chair Nadler, Chair Cohen, Ranking Member Johnson, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, it's an honor to be
here. I thank you for the opportunity to provide my testimony.
I'll begin by commenting on the vicious physical attacks on
Asian Americans that have been reported in the media in the
last couple of years. I then turn to affirmative discrimination
against Asian Americans by educational institutions.
I close by appealing to those who desire to address these
issues not to do so in a way that focuses on ``equity of
outcome'' at the expense of the principle of equality under
law.
Christina Yuna Lee. Ms. Lee was an Asian-American creative
content producer living and working in New York City. In the
early morning hours of February 13th, just two weeks ago, the
35-year-old was stalked and stabbed to death in her apartment
building.
Michelle Alyssa Go. Ms. Go was an Asian-American
professional services manager and advocate for those
experiencing homelessness. On the morning of January 15th of
this year, the 40-year-old was murdered when she was shoved
from a subway platform into an oncoming train.
Yao Pan Ma. Last year, Mr. Ma, an Asian immigrant chef
experiencing financial hardship during the throes of the COVID-
19 pandemic, was brutally beaten, his face and head stomped.
Mr. Ma later died of the bleeding this attack caused in his
brain.
I could go on. These attacks did not discriminate against
Asians of any particular ethnicity or hailing from any
particular geographic region of the world.
It is no surprise to learn then, as a recent Pew Research
Center poll revealed, that 32 percent of Asian-American adults
fear being threatened or attacked, a proportion of respondents
that surpassed any similar concern of other racial or ethnic
groups.
Because as a result of their ethnicity Asian Americans may
be at a heightened risk to become victims of violent crime,
lawmakers and others must establish and maintain a hard line
against all crime.
A failure to prioritize and fund effective policing and to
State publicly and often that crime will be punished swiftly
and severely will only lead to more tragedies like the ones
I've stated.
The organization that I head, the Center for Equal
Opportunity, has participated as amicus curiae in numerous
Supreme Court cases regarding disparate treatment on the basis
of race or ethnicity, including now in the case of Students for
Fair Admission v. Harvard, consolidated with a case challenging
a similar racial preferences scheme at the University of North
Carolina.
In reviewing the evidence in these cases, one is struck by
how clearly and shamelessly both schools discriminate in their
admissions based on the race or ethnicity of the applicant,
particularly against highly-qualified Asian Americans.
The evidence presented in the Harvard case indicates how
extraordinarily well-qualified Asian-American applicants are
routinely downgraded via character and fitness ratings assigned
by admissions officials.
This process makes a mockery of merit-based admissions and
is a naked pretense for simple racial balancing that
intentionally decreases Asian-American representation and that
of other applicants on the basis of their skin color and
ethnicity that is reminiscent of 20th century efforts by the
same institution to limit enrollment of Jewish students.
Notwithstanding this insidious discrimination against Asian
Americans, the present Administration has not only failed to
address it, but it has also actively worked to preserve it.
One of the first actions this Administration took in
February 2021 was to dismiss a Justice Department lawsuit
launched against Yale University during the Trump
Administration for illegally discriminating against
undergraduate applicants based on their race and national
origin.
When later given the opportunity by the Supreme Court to
State its position on the Harvard litigation, the
Administration once again betrayed the Asian-American community
by opposing the Supreme Court reviewing the case. Luckily, the
court disregarded this suggestion and will render its judgment.
The discrimination in college admissions is only the tip of
the iceberg. Even grade schools, such as nearby Thomas
Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, which we have
heard about today, are implementing efforts plainly targeted at
reducing enrollment of disfavored races and ethnicities,
specifically Asian Americans.
Just last week, the judge in the case challenging this
racial balancing wrote a stinging rebuke, calling the practice
patently unconstitutional. I'm relieved that the courts and
other institutions appear to be serious about addressing what
has become all too common discrimination in American society.
Congress can steel these efforts by demanding respect for
its civil rights decrees stating plainly that racial
discrimination is illegal. We have to carefully and
thoughtfully work to eliminate racial discrimination in a
country that in so many ways over its history have sanctioned
it, not just for preferred races but for every single
individual.
This is good and serious work, and I'm both professionally
and personally committed to it. I've, clearly, focused my
remarks on Asian-American discrimination because it's near and
dear to my heart.
My mother-in-law came to this country in the 1960s as a
Vietnamese refugee. My wife is part Vietnamese. My daughter, my
son, my brother-in-law, my family, is multiracial, like so many
other families in this beautiful country.
I want to remove any impediments any of them may, for
immutable characteristics such as ethnicity, face to equal
opportunity. I want that for every other man, woman, and child
in this country.
We will never achieve that, however, by focusing on what is
euphemistically referred to as equity. That concept requires
explicit and overt discrimination and a disregard for the
enlightenment and, therefore, American fundamental principle of
equality under law.
The insistence that we must produce equal outcomes among
groups defined by skin color, national origin, or gender
perverts the American understanding of justice based on
individual rights.
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Westhill follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Westhill.
I hope the Witnesses understand that because we have so
many we just have to keep to the time. I'm going to keep the
Members to the time, too.
Okay. Next, we have Amrith Kaur Aakre, and please tell me
if I've mispronounced your name. She's the Legal Director of
the Sikh Coalition, a role that she's held since 2017.
In this role, she focuses on high-impact litigation and
oversees all legal work while managing initiatives to protect
the civil rights of all Americans in areas such as workplace
discrimination, hate crimes, school bullying, racial and
religious profiling, and general religious rights policy
issues.
Under her leadership, the Sikh Coalition's legal team has
successfully litigated religious accommodation and bias-based
school bullying cases, advocated on behalf of hate crime
victims, and provided rapid response legal services.
They've also submitted public comment to numerous Federal
agencies regarding fair interpretations of their policies, as
well as testimony before the EEOC regarding emerging employment
discrimination issues, including those arising from the COVID-
19 pandemic.
Prior to joining the Sikh Coalition, she served as Cook
County Assistant State's Attorney in Chicago for 11 years. She
received her J.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago
John Marshall School of Law and her B.A. from George Washington
University.
Ms. Aakre, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF AMRITH KAUR AAKRE
Ms. Aakre. Chairs Nadler and Cohen, Ranking Member Johnson,
Vice Chair Ross, and distinguished Members of this
Subcommittee, thank you for welcoming me here today to testify.
My name is Amrith Kaur Aakre, and I am a dedicated public
servant and former prosecutor, and today I join you in my
capacity as the legal director for the Sikh Coalition.
When 9/11 happened, however, I was a college student,
serving as the President of the George Washington University's
Sikh Students Association. I'll never forget the fear, anger,
and disbelief that I felt while watching the Pentagon burn from
my rooftop.
As soon as I realized the hijackers' pictures depicted them
with brown skin, turbans, and beards, just like my father and
so many other relatives, I felt something else, too--an
immediate recognition that the Sikh American community would be
targeted with backlash.
As a minority religious group, Sikhs understand the
intersection of violence, trauma, and discrimination. Its
impact is great and paralyzing, and I knew that we didn't have
a voice to combat it.
From September to October of 2001, the Sikh Coalition
tracked more than 300 incidents of bias and bigotry impacting
Sikhs across the nation. In fact, as you've heard today, the
first person killed in a post 9/11 hate crime was a turbaned
Sikh man shot to death in Arizona on September 15th, and while
we can never stop focusing on the urgent threat of hate crimes,
they are only part of the story.
Since 9/11, our country has seen discrimination continue to
permeate every aspect of our society. Workplace discrimination
harms Sikhs in a range of public and private sector jobs,
including transportation, entertainment, healthcare, the
military, and law enforcement, by allowing for the biased
interpretation and application of government policies and laws.
We have seen Sikhs willing to put their lives on the line
in defense of their cities and country, only to be told that
uniform and grooming policies prohibit their articles of faith.
We have seen Sikhs ordered to cut their hair for work-
related drug testing, even when alternative means are readily
available, and we have seen Sikh first responders in the fight
against COVID-19 pressured to shave their religiously-mandated
beards instead of being given appropriate safe personal
protective equipment that doesn't interfere with their faith.
Regardless of the details, time and again these policies
are interpreted in a way which disproportionately impacts
minority communities, and our system allows it to keep
happening. We also receive Sikh travelers' reports of
inappropriate demands to remove articles of faith,
discriminatory comments by TSA agents, and other profil-ing in
our airports.
This is a humiliating hindrance for Sikhs and other
religious and racial minorities, members of the transgender
community and others, and additional discriminatory practices
like no-fly lists and the lingering effects of the previous
Administration's Muslim ban continue to perpetuate profiling
against too many people.
Sadly, even our children are not exempt. Per a 2014 Sikh
Coalition study, six students who maintained turbans, other
head coverings or unshorn hair are bullied at a rate twice the
national average.
Students have been called slurs like terrorists by their
peers and teachers alike, and many are subject to physical
violence. Worse, families are often left without recourse when
administrators refuse to respond.
School discrimination can take other forms as well,
including keeping Sikh students from participating in sports or
going on field trips because of their articles of faith.
Now, I want to be clear. Anti-Sikh bias and discrimination
existed well before 9/11. The events of that day, the way our
politics and culture changed in response, and the manner in
which our government policies and regulations continue to be
interpreted have all institutionalized that discrimination, and
Congress must take action.
First, you can fight workplace discrimination by equalizing
the title VII legal standard that currently allows employers to
discriminate against workers who require religious
accommodations if the request pose more than a de minimis cost.
Second, you can pass the End Racial and Religious Profiling
Act and the NO BAN Act, both of which will reduce profiling
against Sikhs and other marginalized groups.
Third, you can amend title 6 to ensure that the Department
of Education prevents religious-based bullying. Additionally,
we must continue to bring new perspectives to the halls of
power, including elected office, agency appointments, and the
judiciary, which all lack Sikh voices, to affect the creation,
implementation, and fair interpretation of our laws.
Finally, we must continue to confidently assert the value
of diversity and inclusion in our society, despite controversy
and backlash.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look
forward to your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Aakre follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much.
Our final Witness is Annetta Seecharran. She is the
Executive Director of the Chhaya Community Development
Corporation, a housing and economic justice organization
serving Indo-Caribbean and South Asian New Yorkers.
Previously, she was the director for policy and advocacy at
United Neighborhood Houses advocating on behalf of 500,000 low-
income New Yorkers served by New York City's settlement houses.
From 2001-2009, she served as the Executive Director of
South Asian Youth Action, a pioneering organization dedicated
to ensuring success of low income South Asian and Indo-
Caribbean youth in New York City.
A Guyanese--please correct me if my pronunciation is not
right--immigrant, she holds an M.A. in international political
economy and development from Fordham University, a B.A. in
political science from Manhattanville College, and executive
management certificates from Harvard and Columbia Business
Schools.
You are recognized now for five minutes.
Please unmute.
STATEMENT OF ANNETTA SEECHARRAN
Ms. Seecharran. My apologies.
Chair Cohen, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Annetta Seecharran. I am an immigrant
from Guyana and the Executive Director of Chhaya Community
Development Corporation.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. My
testimony is based on my work with South Asian communities in
New York City over the past two decades, through two formidable
crises.
When 9/11 happened, I was the Executive Director of South
Asian Youth Action--SAYA--and over the course of the pandemic,
I have been serving as the Executive Director of Chhaya
Community Development Corporation, a Queens-based nonprofit
serving South Asian and Indo-Caribbean New Yorkers.
Over the past 20 years, I have Witnessed how our
communities confront a myriad of challenges layered on top of
crisis after crisis. Looking back at the 9/11 attacks and its
aftermath brings up many emotions for me.
One of my cousin's lost her husband in the South Tower.
Yet, at a time of heart-wrenching grief, my family was also
targets of verbal abuse and attacks. Days following the
collapse of the towers, my family went to St. Vincent's
Hospital with the hope of finding my cousin's husband. There,
people shouted at us, ``This is your fault.'' Later, at a 9/11
memorial service, my mother was told, ``Get out of this
country.''
Our experiences reflect the double grieving that many South
Asians, Muslims, Arabs, and Sikhs endured in the hours, days,
and months after 9/11. We grieved for the terrible losses on
that day, and we grieved because we knew that a backlash was on
its way, targeting and scapegoating our communities.
This backlash manifested in different ways, from
interpersonal violence to State policies that led to arrests,
detentions, and deportations. Young Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs
who visited science community centers shared how they were
being followed by law enforcement, how they were afraid to take
the subway or fly, or how they were being bullied at school.
People became worried about doing the most routine
activities--going to places of worship, eating at South Asian
restaurants, going to Muslim schools, and visiting public
parks.
The cumulative impact of two decades of interpersonal and
State violence is profound and, as a result, young people made
different educational and vocational choices because of their
outsider status. Many experiences heightened isolation,
depression, and anxiety, which are still sources of trauma
today, two decades later.
There is a through line between the post-9/11 environment
and today. Government agencies did not invest the necessary
resources in our communities to ensure our well-being despite
the tremendous need in the wake of 9/11.
Instead, government resources were allocated towards
profiling and surveillance. This is true even as South Asians
are one of the fastest growing immigrant groups in the country.
There are 5.4 million South Asians living in the United
States with ancestry from Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, and the diaspora including
Trinidad and Tobago, my country, Guyana, Fiji, Tanzania, and
Kenya.
There is immense socio-economic and educational diversity
within the South Asian community. For example, in New York
City, Nepali immigrants have the highest rate of uninsurance.
Bangladeshis and Pakistani immigrants have some of the
highest rates of poverty at 32 and 29 percent, respectively. In
the pandemic, an already challenging such became much worse.
In the wake of national crises, we must move through
several phases--recovery, redress, reinvestment, and
reconciliation. When it comes to 9/11, however, we seem to have
barely scratched the surface even though it's been 20 years.
Congress can take steps, including investing in the well-
being of communities affected by the 9/11 backlash, by making
long-term investments towards social services, recreation,
education, as well as neighborhood programs and cultural
community spaces.
Additionally, implementing equitable immigration policies,
such as a pathway for citizenship for undocumented immigrants,
temporary protective status for Nepalis, and providing supports
to Afghan refugees.
Our community groups have been responding with care and
solidarity for two decades. We call for more hearings like this
around the country to fully understand the depth of the impact
on our communities.
Further recommendations are in my written testimony. Thank
you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Seecharran follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much for your testimony and thank
all the panelists for joining us today. We will now proceed
with questions from the Committee under the five-minute rule
and I will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes.
Again, this has been very powerful testimony from all our
panelists and from our Members of Congress who led off this
morning's proceedings.
For too long Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American
communities in the United States have been the targets of
unfair and unwarranted suspicion, scapegoating, and
stigmatization.
In the aftermath of the attacks on our country on 9/11,
these groups faced intense interpersonal discrimination and
violence as well as discriminatory government policies that
were implemented at the Federal and State levels.
These policies have subjected Muslim and Arab communities
to intense government surveillance and investigation under the
guise of counterterrorism and national security.
For instance, following a policy change in 2002 requiring
all aliens to register their change of address within 10 days
of moving, a Palestinian legal immigrant was pulled over in my
home State of North Carolina for driving four miles over the
speed limit. He was detained for two months and eventually
charged with a misdemeanor for failing to report his change of
address.
Between 2000 and 2009, hate crimes against Muslims in the
United States increased by 500 percent and rates of attacks
against these groups remain troublingly high to this day.
Unfortunately, in my home State of North Carolina, we are
familiar with violent attacks against Muslims. In 2015, three
young Muslim university students were brutally murdered by
their neighbor when they were sitting down to have dinner.
While the perpetrator ultimately pled guilty to first
degree murder, he was never charged with a hate crime.
In recent years, there have been numerous reports across
the State of verbal and physical assaults on Muslim women who
wore head coverings.
The Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American populations in
my district continue to grow and these groups are an essential
part of the diverse and rich culture of the Research Triangle
area of North Carolina.
It's critical that we continue to examine the experiences
of these communities in the United States and do everything we
can to prevent unwarranted acts of discrimination and hatred
against them.
My first question is for our councilwoman from Tennessee.
How has government surveillance of Muslim communities,
including mosques and Muslim organizations, undermined the
relationship between community members and law enforcement?
Ms. Suara. Thank you. That's a very good question, because
part of the work that AMAC was doing was actually trying to
work within the law enforcement and the Muslim community, and
we actually have meetings with new recruits to talk about how
to deal with the Muslim community as a way to make sure that
there's cooperation on all sides.
Every time there's a surveillance, every time that there's
a profiling, then it sets our community back because it feels
as if here we are again, and no matter what we do it's never
enough.
So, these types of surveillance is something that we--it's
counterproductive to the work that we all want to do. If the
intent is security, if the intent is making everybody safe,
then it's important for law enforcement to work with the
community rather than spying on them and going behind their
back.
So, in my community what I've seen is that people don't
want to cooperate, people don't want to speak up, people don't
want to come to the mosque, because they feel like their
privacy is being violated.
So, it is very detrimental to the work that my
organization, AMAC, was trying to do, and it's still very
detrimental to the citizens in my community.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much for that response.
Maya Berry--and I know we only have a minute left, because
I'm adhering to the time, too, but how have the United States
immigration policies fed into this discrimination and this
systemic abuse of people who are here illegally and just our
citizens and neighbors?
Ms. Berry. I think one of the most deeply impactful way
that it's been negative is that it views our communities as
this existential other, continuously foreign or otherized, in a
way that's just not consistent with both the history of our
country, given we're all immigrants to this wonderful nation,
and it's important that we understand it as not also keeping us
safe.
Like, part of--what you'll hear from many of our--the
Witnesses today is that these policies put us in some ways more
at risk rather than protect us.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. I am now going to turn the
gavel over to Congresswoman Jackson Lee to preside because I
have to be somewhere else, and then we'll hear from our Ranking
Member.
Thank you all for your testimony and for your time today. I
now recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes so he can
talk while Ms. Jackson Lee comes up.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Nomani, in recent years, equality has been replaced
with equity as the central focus of the modern civil rights
movement, and we have seen the--how this has played out in a
number of contexts. You've testified today, it's been very
compelling, about how this has had a real effect in the public
education context.
Your testimony was really amazing. I mean, so, the local
school officials actually went to your minority community, and
simply because you expressed your views as concerned parents
about the curriculum they said--and these are your quotes, ``we
need a different kind of minority.'' They said, ``you must
check your privileges at the door,'' whatever in the world that
means, and that you're ``white adjacent.'' I mean, how
offensive is that?
Yet, you took a stand. All of you got together. You took a
stand, and you rounded up the parents group. You started the
Coalition for TJ, the Thomas Jefferson High School in Northern
Virginia, and you just won in court, as you said, against this
really insidious racism of critical race theory-centered
policies that are a scourge on the nation right now.
So, here's the question. How can other parent groups
organize and stand together like you all have? Because I think
this is very inspiring and instructional for other people.
Ms. Nomani. Thank you so much, Representative Johnson, and
thank you to all the representatives on the House Judiciary
Committee that have actually had the backs of parents. We are
ordinary moms and dads, and we did not choose to have fights
with our school boards or with principals, in fact, we have
decided that there are positions of value that matter to us and
what we want to encourage every parent is to have courage, have
moral courage.
Everybody who wants to shut us down needs to understand
that nobody comes between parent and their baby. Nobody comes
between a parent and the child's education. So, what we want to
do as Parents Defending Education, we invite people to register
their parent groups, come to us, and get tips on how to speak
to the school board, how to file a Freedom of Information Act
request.
What I want to encourage your Democratic lawmakers also to
do is to take the letter that the Republican leaders, the
Committee sent just yesterday, asking serious questions about
the new oversight surveillance and monitoring that is happening
of parents.
Every single thing that was said here today is now being
done to parents. That is unconstitutional and illegal. I really
hope that your Democratic lawmakers will also team up with you
to understand that parents are our friends. They are not the
enemy.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Absolutely, and showing moral
courage inspires courage in others and that is what is so
important. It is a big part of what it means to be an American
to stand against this kind of stuff. The Republicans in our
Committee stood together and we are very concerned about the
weaponization of the Department of Justice. No one lower than
the Attorney General himself, the source of your t-shirt, they
labeled concerned parents as domestic terrorists for expressing
their views about what is happening in their curriculum. So, we
are on top of that. We are seeking some oversight. We will make
sure that we don't weaponize the Federal government against
concerned parents at least at the next election cycle.
Mr. Westhill, I have got to move on to you. I don't have a
lot of time, but I wanted to ask you, you began to explain how
the new advancement of equity as the benchmark is inconsistent
with our civil rights laws and constitutional protections. You
used the word or the phrase affirmative discrimination. Could
you unpack that just a little bit more in a minute and a half
here?
Mr. Westhill. Sure. Thank you very much for the question,
Ranking Member Johnson.
Affirmative discrimination is essentially plain old
discrimination like we have known in this country for many,
many years. It just happens to be the case that it is being
used in an official format at educational institutions, in
contracting, in businesses, and it is the sort of thing that is
the overt racial discrimination of the past that we were hoping
we would get past in this country at some point, come back on
steroids. That is what I mean.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, that is right. There are
elements in our politics and in the culture right now, the
radical left, they are recasting racism and discrimination and
equality for the zeal of equal outcomes, this Quixotic quest is
not going to happen. Equity is dangerous. It is a poison to our
system. It impedes actual progress in improving race relations
and opportunity in the United States. I think parents,
citizens, people are beginning to recognize this, and they need
more avenues to express their outrage.
We have election cycles. There is one component of that. I
am really grateful for the work that both of you are doing at
organizations that you lead and others like it because this is
the way we effect change in America. So, thanks for being here,
thanks for your time, all our Witnesses for your time today. I
yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. [Presiding.] Thank you to the Ranking
Member. Your time has expired. It is my pleasure now to yield
to the Chair of the Full Committee, Chair Nadler, for five
minutes.
Chair Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Seecharran, how
is the legacy of the 9/11 attack continue to impact South Asian
communities in New York?
Ms. Seecharran. Thank you, Representative Nadler, for that
question and I want to thank you for your leadership. What I
have Witnessed over the pandemic is that the already weak and
disenfranchised circumstances in which our community members
found themselves, that it is directly tied to the lack of
investment in our communities after 9/11, made them that much
more vulnerable to the pandemic.
Members of our community such as in southeast Queens that
experienced the highest infection rates, yet it was impossible
to get appropriate health and attention during the pandemic.
In their rebuilding and recovery process, they have our
small businesses. While our small businesses are trying to
rebuild, they still struggle with discrimination and cultural
isolation, language barriers, et cetera.
Chair Nadler. Thank you. Ms. Aakre, your testimony noted
that Sikhs continue to face difficulty in accessing workplaces
in a range of sectors and industries. What kind of barriers do
religious minorities face in workplaces when title VII fails to
protect their civil rights and civil liberties?
Ms. Aakre. Thank you, Congressman. As you know, under title
VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers are prohibited from
discriminating against employees on the basis of religion. The
biggest issue is that the threshold under title VII for
employers to deny the provision of a religious accommodation is
extremely low. All they have to do is show that there is a de
minimis cost, often interpreted as any cost associated with
providing the request and then they can successfully overcome
that title VII standard.
It is really the lowest legal standard for any civil rights
provision and leaves religious minorities out on an island of
isolation, segregation, and failure to hire. I believe that
that is one of the largest issues that comes to the core when
we are talking about workplace discrimination against Sikhs and
other religious minorities.
Chair Nadler. What standard would you suggest?
Ms. Aakre. Well, under the ADA, for example, there is a
higher threshold which is the undue hardship standard. It is
much more difficult for employers to overcome that burden. The
balancing test is much more in favor of employees that are
seeking an accommodation.
I believe that that is the standard that would be more
appropriate for religious accommodations as well.
Chair Nadler. Thank you. Professor Wadhia, I want to ask
you to elaborate on some of your testimony, Ms. Suara says Ms.
Berry about the same thing, your testimony describes how in the
years following 9/11 the Federal Government developed several
new immigration policies in the name of national security.
Can you describe how these policies impacted Muslim, Arab,
and South Asian communities?
Ms. Wadhia. Thank you for the question and really, the
history predates 9/11, but in the 9/11 context, I have spoken
in my oral testimony about the special registration program and
the immigration consequences included, for example, someone
receiving a charging document and being placed in deportation
proceedings; an individual because of an overstay being
deported; an individual because of a failure to register
because maybe they did not even know about the special
registration program, being denied an immigration benefit or a
green card years later while sitting in an immigration office
during an adjustment interview.
We had other 9/11 policies that were in the name of the
national security, but in fact, immigration changes. So, some
of those consequences included, for example, the detention of
1,200 men who were broadly labeled as September 11 detainees
coming largely from MASA communities.
We also saw an absconder initiative where individuals who
had orders of removal were identified, targeted, and punished
by the Federal government.
So, these are some of the examples, if you connect the
dots, in which national security is used as a proxy for
immigration policy and then led to serious immigration
consequences.
What we didn't see is a great gain in finding the next
terrorist. So, that the fallout and collaborative damage was in
the immigration space.
Chair Nadler. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time has expired. Let me
call on Mr. Jordan for his five minutes, the Ranking Member of
the Full Committee.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. He is not here for now, so we can
go forward if the Chair has other Members of her party.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, continuing with our membership, thank
you so very much, Mr. Johnson.
Now, I am pleased to call the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Raskin, for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. A couple of my
colleagues have referred to discrimination and something that
has taken place in the past. For those of us who lived through
January the 6th, we saw old fashioned White nationalism and
racism alive and well at our front door. There were members of
extremist groups, including the Aryan Nations, and Klansman,
and the militia groups that came to smash our windows, beat the
daylights out of our police officers, knock down our doors, and
interrupt the counting of electoral college votes for the first
time in American history. I am just surprised to hear people
referring to racism as something that took place in the past
when we are seeing the evidence of it all around us today,
including most recently at the gathering of Nick Fuentes with
the radical right, a known anti-Semite, and he was visited by
none other than a couple of our colleagues, Marjorie Taylor
Greene being one of them, and they were there just a few days
ago.
Let me start with Ms. Suara. Can you tell me how government
surveillance of Muslim communities including mosques and Muslim
groups has undermined relationships between community members
and law enforcement, and is that still taking place?
Ms. Suara. Thank you. Yes, surveillance of the Muslim
communities is counterproductive, and it is very dangerous.
Basically, when the line of surveillance in our community, it
makes our community members feel as the other, un-American as
they were called. The government does not trust us because this
is not something that is happening everywhere. It is happening
in our own community.
So, every time that happens, it makes the job of someone
like myself very difficult. Because when I am talking to
people, I try to tell members of my community we are Americans.
We pay taxes. We deserve the same rights and we deserve
compensation from our government. We deserve the respect and
the privacy like everyone else, but every time the surveillance
happens or profiling of a community, it sets the clock back. It
leads to lack of trust in the government and that is
counterproductive to what we want to do as government.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. I have a question for Dean Wadhia.
Can you explain what the civil liberties and human consequences
of President Trump's Muslim ban that he began his
Administration with?
Ms. Wadhia. Thank you for the question. There were
significant human consequences and policy harms that are the
various versions of the Muslim ban. I will share a few. One
included sort of vast, invisible family separation, a policy
that continues to this day. So, people in qualifying family
relationships, a U.S. citizen married to a Yemeni and they are
unable be together and were otherwise excluded; a Syrian
student courted by a university for a Ph.D. program could be
denied and not be enrolled in the program because of the ban;
an Iranian mother, who was seeking to visit the United States
to see the birth her first grandchild, unable to travel to the
United States because of the ban.
So, those were some of the harms that were direct. There
are also lasting harms, right? There are procedural impediments
that still make it impossible for individuals who were
separated or affected to be reunited even after the ban has
been repealed because of costs, because of bureaucracies, and
so on. Finally--
Mr. Raskin. If I can interrupt one second. Are you finding
the discriminatory immigration policies and law enforcement
policies are the things that are of major concern to the
communities that we are talking about today or are people more
upset about what is called critical race theory and I am not
even quite sure what they mean by that. Are people most
concerned about policies like the Muslim ban and discriminatory
policies and law enforcement or are they more concerned about
the thing called critical race theory?
Ms. Wadhia. I am very concerned about the people and that
includes those who have been harmed and continue to be harmed
by policies that the government has a choice to change. It
whittles down to choices.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman yields back. It is my
pleasure to yield to the Ranking Member of the Full Committee,
Mr. Jordan, for five minutes.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Professor Wadhia, are
you a proponent of critical race theory?
Ms. Wadhia. I teach with the statute of my centerpiece, so
I start with the immigration statutes. I do think it is
important to also talk about the history of how the statute has
evolved, so my students are able to connect the dots between
the history of the immigration statutes which have been
compared second in complication to the U.S. tax code.
Mr. Jordan. Let me ask it this way, Professor, I am sorry.
Do you support critical race theory being taught in our K-12
schools or in higher education?
Ms. Wadhia. It is a term that has had many meanings. I do
support teaching history and I do support--
Mr. Jordan. Well, we all support that.
Ms. Wadhia. So, that is how I would answer the question,
Congressman.
Mr. Jordan. Well, you believe discrimination based on race
is wrong, right?
Ms. Wadhia. I do.
Mr. Jordan. Okay, I just wanted to keep opponents of
critical race theory, Ibram X. Kendi said this, ``the defining
question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or
inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is
okay.''
Do you agree with that statement?
Ms. Wadhia. I believe that if we have and I will speak as
an immigration expert, if we have immigration policies that
explicitly target people based on their country of birth or
their religion, I think that is a problematic policy.
Mr. Jordan. No, that is not what I asked you. I asked you
if equity is achieved through discrimination, is that
discrimination okay because the key proponent of critical race
theory says it is. I just want to know if you think it is. If
equity is achieved through discrimination, is that
discrimination, okay?
Ms. Wadhia. I consider the question of equity only and in a
different way because I answer these questions through the lens
of immigration. So, if you want me to answer about where I
stand on immigration, I would say that if we had immigration
policy--
Mr. Jordan. Let me do this then. Mr. Westhill, do you think
Asian Americans who have been denied entrance into certain
institutions, do you think they are okay with equity being
achieved--so called equity being achieved at some of these
schools of higher learning through discrimination? Do you think
they are okay with that?
Mr. Westhill. Thank you, Congressman Jordan. No, I don't.
Mr. Jordan. No, because it is real to them, isn't it?
Mr. Westhill. Yes, it is. I will add that I don't know when
racial or ethnic discrimination in any form became
controversial, but my testimony here should clearly not be
controversial, but it is.
Mr. Jordan. I know. For the life of me, I don't know why it
is, is either--let me just quickly go to Ms. Nomani. Thank you
for being here.
So, I noticed your shirt. It says I am a mom, not a
domestic terrorist. This is an issue that this Committee has--
or at least the Republicans have. Once we learned about the
memorandum from the Attorney General, memorandum targeting, you
got it right there. Well, you got the letter right there from
the school board association, but I am just curious, do you
think as someone who has been active in defending the rights of
parents, moms, and dads, in our schools, are you nervous about
this now becomes a whistleblower who came forward and gave us
the email send from the FBI to agents around the country
talking about this threat tag label being placed on parents.
Are you nervous that designation, that label, that tag may be
now associated with your name?
Ms. Nomani. I know that we are now under surveillance as
parents. We are seeing it in local authorities, State
authorities, and Federal authorities. If everybody here is in
agreement that they do not want surveillance and undue
persecution of any human being, that should include parents.
I applaud you all for just being there for the mama bears
and papa bears because you know what, we are in the trenches
and we are fighting and it was a mom, a mom in Fairfax County,
Virginia who revealed to us that Attorney General Merrick
Garland's son-in-law is benefiting from the big tech company
contracts of school boards. So, what I want to encourage parent
to do is be a Nancy Drew, Hardy Boy, whichever way it is in
your school district, file those Freedom of Information Act
requests and that is how we got the emails that traced exactly
this school board letter to the White House.
Mr. Jordan. Madam Chair, let me just reiterate the numerous
times that Republicans have asked to have the Attorney General
back, remember his testimony that day said in no way were they
treating parents as domestic terrorists when in fact the day
before he made that statement that email went out to FBI agents
around the country that said put this designation on moms and
dads.
So, once again, we need the Attorney General back here to
answer some critical questions and, frankly, what we really
need is for him to rescind the memorandum and stop this process
he has put in place that is targeting moms and dads. With that,
I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman yields back. I ask Members
who wish to question to turn on their cameras so that we might
be able to call on you appropriately because you are very much
a part of this hearing.
With that in mind, it is my privilege to yield to the Vice
Chair of--oh, I think I am in my other Committee--but be able
to yield to the gentlelady from Missouri for her five minutes,
Congresswoman Bush. I have given you two Vice Chairs, but I am
delighted to share the Vice Chair of the Crime Subcommittee.
So, you are recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Bush. Thank you so much.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Bush. Thank you, Chair, St. Louis and I thank you for
this important hearing. The surveillance and criminalization of
Muslims is older than this nation's founding. Many seem to
forget that enslaved Black people were forcibly brought to this
country starting in 1519 from across the African continent,
including regions that were predominantly Muslim which meant
that thousands of people who came to this country through the
slave trade over 400 years ago were Muslims.
Enslaved Black Muslims practiced their faith in secret out
of fear of retaliation. They resisted slavery. They fought for
our liberation, and many recorded their experiences in Arabic
or other languages to avoid suspicion.
The history of Black Muslims in this country is American
history and I sit here as a Congresswoman and lawmaker to say
our history will not be erased. Our history, including the
history of mass surveillance of Muslims, and that extends much
further than September 11th, to the targeting of Black
nationalists in the 1920s and then the Nation of Islam by the
FBI's COINTELPRO, surveillance, intimidation, and targeting
based primarily on the perception that Black Muslim Americans
in pursuit of Black liberation somehow pose a threat to society
because of their religious and racial identity.
Today Black people make up 20 percent of our country's
Muslim population and are facing surveillance and
criminalization. In documentation that was recovered from the
New York Police Department's mapping and surveillance of
Muslims, American Black Muslims were included in the list of
ancestries of interest.
Ms. Suara, can you talk about the impact of post-9/11
policies on Black Muslims?
Ms. Suara. Thank you so much for that question. Black
Muslims are facing attack two ways, [inaudible] Black and they
face all the discrimination that comes from being Black in
America, but also being Muslim.
We have policies at the State level that marginalize Black
Americans and Muslim Americans, a couple of legislation in my
State ban--talks about indoctrination in schools, talks about
no-go zones that are non-existent. There is a report about
driving while Black in my State that talks about how people
that Black or Brown are targeted and profiled and stopped in
different ways more than any other member of the community.
Because of all that and when I talk about discrimination
policy, I always look at it from what is being taught to our
children that are born here, that are citizens here, that see
all this being thrown against them that says the government is
telling them that they do belong or they do not have the same
rights.
So, a lot of policies, as a Black American, as a Muslim
American, tells me that I do not belong, tells me that I do not
belong in this space with my other colleagues and that is very
discriminatory. So, a lot of them, there is a lot in my
statement about examples of some of those policies that we have
had at the national and at the State level.
Ms. Bush. Thank you for making that very clear for
everyone. Thank you so much.
Professor Alam, can you talk about the ways in which
surveillance against Muslim communities is used to target other
communities and protesters, more generally?
Mr. Alam. Ms. Bush, I am not certain if you meant Professor
Wadhia or myself?
Ms. Bush. Yes, to you.
Mr. Alam. Thank you, Representative Bush. There are several
connections to be made across surveillance of other
communities. What we have seen is ones you mentioned, starting
with surveillance of Black Muslim groups in the 20th century,
the Moorish Science Temple, Nation of Islam, which was seen as
foreign and suspect, and much of it has continued to this day.
The same methods of policing and surveillance and using
race, ethnicity, and national origin as a proxy, as the primary
indicator for suspicion continues today. I detailed some of
that in my testimony. I detailed some of that in my written
statement, but it is also happening, for instance, with Chinese
Nationals in this country. Chinese students, for instance, are
being marked with suspicion, and that is something that we have
worked on, and we have worked persistently to actually
dismantle that entire system by which the Federal government
essentially uses its policing and surveillance powers to mark
communities on the basis of their race or national origin and
seeing them as suspect simply on those bases. That is happening
across communities. That is happening with Asian American
communities, Muslim American communities, and has been
happening, of course, with Black communities in America for a
very long time.
Ms. Bush. Thank you. Just really briefly, according to a
2019 study released by Muslim advocates, Muslims make up nine
percent of those incarcerated in State prisons, but they only
make up one percent of the U.S. population.
Chair, I ask for unanimous consent to introduce the Muslim
Advocates study mentioned above into the record. Thank you and
I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection, so ordered. The
gentlelady's time has expired. Thank you very much for your
questioning.
[The information follows:]
MS. BUSH FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me determine whether Mr. McClintock is
ready, Mr. Roy. Mr. Fischbach. Mr. Owens. I just wanted to make
sure we thanked them for being part of the Committee and did
not want to--I now give them an opportunity for their five
minutes. So, it is my privilege now to five minutes to the
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Garcia.
Ms. Garcia. I apologize. Had to rush to the floor to make
some remarks and I rushed back because I did want to have my
opportunity to ask a few questions.
I want to thank, Madam Chair, the Chair, Mr. Cohen and
everyone involved in putting this together because this, of
course, is a very important topic and one that has been in the
forefront and a lot of attention and use.
Also want to thank all the Witnesses and also our Members
of Congress who are here in the panel before you who shared
your very, very personal stories.
Hate crimes, racial profiling, and harassment have become
widespread in our innately diverse nation because of hateful,
racist, and divisive rhetoric stemming from our own political
and governmental institutions. Racial profiling is patently
unconstitutional, but because of vague or over-broad statutes
law enforcement authorities and other government agencies have
a de facto [inaudible] check to persecute people of color under
the color of law.
I sympathize deeply with our Muslim, Arab, and South Asian
communities. I know that for me in my district, that is
overwhelmingly Latino, we have and continue to experience
systematic and interpersonal violence because of how we vote
and who we are.
For those of you who have mentioned people wrongfully
getting on no-fly lists, for the record let me say I was on the
no-fly list probably for two or three years and it took me
probably another two or three years to get off that list
because somehow there was a Sylvia Rodriguez Garcia somewhere
that was suspect or had a same or similar name to mine and mine
got picked up. So, I have experienced this.
So, I want to start there with Mr. Amrith Kaur Aakre. Do
you have specific recommendations on how TSA can avoid
infringing on traveler's civil rights and civil liberties while
simultaneously protecting our nation, which of course is our
mission?
Is he still on? Did I mispronounce the name. I am so sorry.
It's for Amrith Kaur Aakre.
Ms. Aakre. Oh, thank you, Congresswoman. Thank you for that
question. TSA profiling for Sikh Americans and other minority
groups has always been a problem. Bias against travelers is
probably in every stage of the traveling process and it starts
with the fact that the TSA agents do not receive adequate
training on TSA policies or cultural competencies, which is
evident from the moment many stigmatized groups arrive at the
airport and have to go through behavioral detection before
reaching security. It continues as these passengers pass
through security, proceed past the security screening area, and
in many cases even as those individuals are boarding flights.
TSA needs better technology. They need clearer and more
transparent screening standards, they need increased oversight,
and they need mechanisms in place to ensure that civil rights
compliance takes place. Right now, there's a lot of ambiguous
discretion that contribute to profiling, even where the
technology says an individual is not a threat. The overly broad
discretion that's provided to TSA agents to screen travelers
without clear or articulable thresholds and standards of review
that are required by a lot of other law enforcement agencies--
travelers are often going to feel profiled without any real
basis for why they were selected.
Ms. Garcia. Right. Do you have concerns about bias and the
algorithms bias in the coding in some of the technology that
further perpetuates discrimination?
Mr. Aakre. Yes, Congresswoman, that's right. In 2012, we
created a tool called FlyRights that allows for people to file
complaints against TSA in a more accessible way. Once that tool
was launched, we realized that there were a number of people
that were sort of being screened and provided with additional
sort of levels of heightened security and screening in matters
that were related both to the way the technology is used and in
matters of discretion that TSA agents had in implementing and
applying the technology.
Now, the reality is the technology that exists is only as
good as the people that are manning it and monitoring it. In
this case, while the algorithms might also include levels of
bias; and I'm sure they do, what we've also recognized is that
inadequate training on the parts of the TSA agents when they're
implementing that technology. Those algorithms will always lead
to secondary screening for minority communities, especially by
minorities like Sikhs, who have really visible articles of
faith.
Ms. Garcia. Right, because like in my case the name that I
was--got a hit with my name was frankly really very different.
It wasn't even Garcia. The first name wasn't even Sylvia. So,
whoever coded it or whatever algorithm they used it was really
about every third or fourth letter that was the same. So, it
took me forever to get off it. Fortunately, I did. So, this
really concerns me in terms of our technology and the
algorithms and some of the stuff that we have seen even in
banking and other services. So, thank you so much.
Thank you to all the Witnesses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady's time has expired. Thank
you so very much.
Let me thank all of the Members who are here, and I do want
to acknowledge Mr. Johnson and other Members who are here, and
thank Mr. Cohen and the Committee for this hearing, which I am
part of.
Let me now address my questions, and I yield myself five
minutes, the time that may be called on to finish my
questioning, because I do want to open with--that we are a few
days away from crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge, which
reflected the shedding of blood for the right to vote by
African Americans and other diverse Americans that ultimately
joined Dr. King after Bloody Sunday, where our dear friend,
late colleague John Lewis shed blood, as others did on that
bridge. I am always moved by the emotion of that moment of the
shedding of blood for freedom.
So, let me say that I don't hold Ms. Nomani or to Mr.
Westhill any form of discrimination, nor do I think the Members
of my Democratic colleagues, the Members of the Democratic
Party as well. We do believe as John has taught us and Dr. King
in the beloved community but let me try to set the record
straight so that this continued miscalculation and
politicalization and campaign rhetoric that has really hurt
more than helped can be set.
Now, there are many definitions to what we have been
discussing, but let me put into the record I think a reasoned
definition of which if someone has a rebuttal they can--when I
say rebuttal, if they have another definition, the record is
open for you to submit it.
Critical race theory is a cross-disciplinary intellectual
and social movement of civil rights scholars and activists who
seek to examine the intersection of race and law in the United
States and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches
to racial justice. For example, the CRT conceptual framework is
one way to study how and why U.S. courts give more lenient
punishments to drug dealers from some races than to drug
dealers of other races.
The word ``critical'' in its name is an academic term that
refers to critical thinking, critical theory, and scholarly
criticism rather than criticizing or blaming people. It first
arose in the 1970s. The other critical schools of thought such
as critical legal studies, which examined how legal rules
protect the status quo.
It has nothing to do with teaching anyone in elementary
school, middle school, or any place else. It is a scholarly
effort to address the question of the intersection of law and
race. Any books that have been done that have used it is
because the author is unclear, imprecise, and without knowledge
about that. Parents certainly have the right to engage with
their school districts on what they believe is effective for
their students, however, I will not accept the abuse of that
term to come before us in this hearing that is talking about
the absolute discrimination against people who cannot speak for
themselves.
So, let me just show why this African American young person
had to have his hair cut off so that he could effectively
participate in sports. My friends decided to vote against
something called the CROWN Act, which means that whatever style
hair you have is protected under the Constitution.
Maybe you're not familiar with the story of Emmett Till.
This is what his mother had to confront: This bloody and
mutilated head of a 14-year-old who went to Mississippi, an
African American who suffered the indignities of violence.
So, I think this hearing that talks about discrimination
and the civil rights of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American
communities is focused on how discrimination laws have
undermined over the period of their time here in the United
States in ways that we can try and fix. We are problem solvers.
We are grateful that the courts have responded to perceive
discrimination, but in any event what I would clearly say--and
you need to put down your camera, please.
You need to put down your camera. You need to put down your
camera.
I understand that, but I need the Witness to [inaudible].
Ms. Nomani. Why do I have to put down my camera?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Because I am already on video, so I don't
need to be on yours.
Ms. Nomani. I mean, this is free speech.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I have asked respectfully, and you choose
not to be respectful, and so I will allow you to continue.
Thank you so very much.
In any event, I believe that this hearing deals with the
impact of discrimination on the groups who have suffered
discrimination in such a large way. So, I would like to make
sure that we are focused on that.
I am disappointed that CRT has been politicized to attack
people who simply want to ensure that our children have an
opportunity to be engaged in diversity.
I know that this--words that I am saying now in the most
calm way will be mutilated by the right wing media. That is all
they do. They do not Act in truth, and they do not try to
provoke truth; they try to provoke people.
We have been so busy trying to step away from that we saw
what happened on January 6. As Congressman Raskin said, ``they
came, they beat, they attacked, they called names, and they
made a mockery of democracy.'' They attack the citadel of
democracy. That is not what we are doing here in this hearing.
So, may I ask, Ms. Berry, the Trump Muslim ban, various
other discriminatory aspects that impact the Asian American
community--I want to simply ask you the question: What kind of
violence has been generated against Asian Americans and Arab
Americans in particular? The Muslim ban that you have seen that
has come out of the utilization of the Trump Muslim ban, the
attack on how some Muslims may be attired, students in school,
how has that atmosphere generated from your perspective violent
acts against Muslim Americans?
Ms. Berry?
Ms. Berry. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. In
the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we saw a significant surge in
hate crimes in our country. One of the key things that we do at
the Arab American Institute is try to increase hate crime data
collection and reporting. We believe that data drives policy
and it's incredibly important that we have the accurate data on
that.
After the last year, we have FBI hate crime data for is
2020, and it is literally the second year, the second highest
year post-9/11. So, from the 2016 presidential election to
today we have seen a marked increase in anti-hate against
pretty much all communities. We really do believe--and while
there's not--I'm not here to make a direct correlation between
speech and hate, but when it emanates from our lawmakers, when
it emanates from the Presidential pulpit, it has a very real
impact on communities and how they're targeted.
If I may, Congresswoman, I would love to take this
opportunity because of what we're talking about here today--one
of the most important things--Congresswoman Garcia pointed out
that she was able to--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Excuse me. Just a moment. Just a
moment.
Madam Chair, since we have gone so far, would you permit me
an additional time period to ask a--
Ms. Jackson Lee. The Ranking Member always has an
additional time period.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. Thank you. I yield
back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Then the Chair will close. Thank you so
very much.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
Ms. Berry. Thank you. Congresswoman Garcia was able to
remove her name from a no-fly list because the no-fly list
actually has a better redress process than the watch list. I
think that's a pretty extraordinary thing. The watch list, we
don't even know the size of it, so you don't know you're on it.
There are estimations it could be well over a million people.
That's a problem. We need to have a better due process
practices in place.
Then the final point I want to make, because I do think
it's--this is a historical hearing. This is important that
we're examining 20 years later the rights of Arab Americans and
American Muslims and South Asians. One of the most important
things we can do as we reflect on that is to actually address
the issue of profiling in a very meaningful way.
In 2003, then Attorney General Ashcroft issued profiling
guidance that said we will not profile--
Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Berry, if you can summarize?
Ms. Berry. We will not profile in 2003. Regrettably those
loopholes were so big that we issued new guidance in 2014
saying we will not profile. We continue to have a loophole that
exists for national security, border security, and local law
enforcement. Until we find a remedy for that, regrettably the
policies that we're talking about here today that impact our
communities directly, but I would argue all Americans, they
will find their way to all Americans.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Berry. We need to do better.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I would appreciate it if you
would submit in writing why is a detailed demographic data
about the Arab American community important and what work has
your organization been doing to increase such data collection
efforts. If you could submit that in writing, I would
appreciate it.
Ms. Berry. Happy to do so. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be interested just in this follow
up to the Sikh community. I know the tragedy that has occurred
in the Sikh family and religion in Minnesota, but can you
describe some of the Sikh Coalition's findings regarding
bullying of Sikh youth and whether or not that also generates
into violence against the Sikh community?
Ms. Aakre. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your question.
According to multiple surveys that the Sikh Coalition has
taken, Sikh American students experience high rates of bullying
and harassment in our nation's public schools, and we continue
receiving and documenting nationwide reports of school
bullying.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Aakre. Sikh boys who wear turbans are called terrorists
and girls are teased for having long hair and many of these
children are subjected to violence. Our research shows that the
majority of Sikh children, just over 50 percent of which have
endured school bullying. Over two-thirds, or 67 percent,
reported that they were bullied in school and turbaned Sikh
children experience bullying at more than double the national
rate.
We know that it occurs not just on school grounds but also
on buses and increasingly on social media such as Facebook,
Twitter, and anonymous mobile phone apps. Despite the growing
recognition of bullying as a national problem, lawmakers and
school officials are not collecting comprehensive bullying data
and their enforcement of these anti-bullying policies that
exist are completely inconsistent.
We also know that title IV is being used to enforce
religious bullying by the Department of Justice. However,
religious discrimination is not explicitly investigated by the
Department of Education because it's not a protected category
under title VI. So, that's an area where bullied kids are left
without full access to recourse when they've suffered.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. Appreciate those
questions. We will have other questions submitted into the
record.
It is my pleasure to yield some time to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As is often our custom when we have Witnesses--take their
time and come to appear before us and we see them champing at
the bit, we know there may be something they would like to add
to the testimony or what has been said. So, I would yield to
Ms. Nomani for that.
Ms. Nomani. Thank you so much, Representative Johnson.
I just think that it is unconscionable, but completely
predictable what we have just Witnessed today, because while
there has been serious conversation about the need to address
issues of discrimination surveillance and other issues of
privacy and constitutionality, not one person from the
Democratic side has taken seriously the very real
discrimination that is happening now in the name of critical
race theory. Instead, I was ridiculed.
Then when I dared to try to take a video of this, I was
intimidated just like parents face in school boards and school
districts all across the country. Do you know what, a Federal
judge has validated what we have said to our school board for
two years.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Right.
Ms. Nomani. We have been ignored. The one thing that I
think every Democratic lawmaker should recognize as a word of
advice is that the parents spoke up in Virginia and they
elected Governor Glenn Youngkin. The parents spoke up in San
Francisco and they recalled three school board members. Who was
one of those school board members? She was this woman who dared
to use the N-word about Asians, calling us the house N-word.
She has now lost her job.
There's a very real discrimination with the privilege
matrix, the oppression matrix, that is targeting Brown and
Black parents and children. Then also we must care about all
children.
This is a very real book, ``Not My Idea,'' and it's
certainly not my idea. It says Whiteness is a bad deal, and
then a contract with the devil. No child in America should ever
feel shame. No child should ever feel discrimination. It is
unconscionable that we do not recognize that we cannot replace
one hierarchy of human value with another hierarchy of human
value. We must protect the integrity of humanity.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is so well said. I will just
close with this and I will yield back, but we used to all agree
on Dr. King's admonition that we be judged by the content of
our character, not the color of our skin. This has now gone
full circle the other way. People are being discriminated
against because of what they look like. I thought that was what
we were all against, but CRT is doing this. It is insidious.
They are putting it in the curriculum.
However well-intended some people may think that it was at
its origin, Madam Chair, it has turned into a weapon that is
being used against children. That is detestable, and we will
stand against it at every turn. I yield back.
Ms. Nomani. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you to the Ranking Member. This
Committee is well-poised to respond to discrimination against
any child in whatever form it takes. This Committee is noted as
the truth sayer for the Constitution, and so I think it is
important that we make sure that our facts are accurate and not
distorted. We embrace all people who come to stand against
discrimination.
Mr. Johnson, we have worked together on some issues. I take
no back seat to that, nor do I have any reason to take any
suggestion that my Democratic colleagues do not stand against
discrimination in any form.
So, I again refer as I close this hearing to the beloved
community. I cited what critical race theory is. It has
obviously had many different changes. It has been reinterpreted
in the wrong way. I hope that the more we get to understand
each other, even starting in early education, that we are a
better nation, we are unified, and that we become the beloved
community. Seeing us juxtaposed against each other in high
tension, misinterpreting comments as maligning or
misrepresenting is unfortunate.
Again, this hearing has been productive. We will find ways
to respond to the pain that has been expressed here and we will
find ways to do it under the umbrella of Dr. King's admonition
of our character and who we are, but certainly of that of my
friend and the late--and colleague, the late colleague John
Lewis. That is the beloved community. I remain as that.
Let us hope that the recounting of this hearing takes
everyone's facts in a way that would be appropriate, does not
distort them, misuse them, try to edit them, which is what
typically happens, but to let our words come out as we have
said with the continuity of our words.
If that is the case, including, Mr. Johnson, you and your
Members and all the Witnesses, we may find a way to come
together.
So, in the name of the beloved community, thanking all of
you for coming today. I want to thank all our Witnesses for
appearing today. Each one's testimony has been recorded into
this hearing.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the Witness or
additional materials for the record.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]