By Cynthia Wright

These are scary times for immigrants, refugees and people of colour.

Immediately following last week's horrific attack, news reports emerged alleging a "Canadian connection." This country's "lax" immigration policy, they argued, provides a safe haven for terrorists. The day after the attack, one Globe and Mail columnist argued that airport security was in the hands of low-wage "new immigrants, many of whom have backgrounds in countries that support terrorism." (A17) Just who is on trial here? So far, no evidence of a "Canadian link" has been established.

But the damage has already been done. In both the United States and Canada, there are calls for massive changes in immigration legislation and policy in the name of "national security" and "fighting terrorism". Some have called for an end to the Canadian constitutional guarantees that immigrants and refugees currently have legal recourse to. In the US, these rights have already been diminished. There, many Muslims or people of colour are being picked up for questioning - even though their links with the attack on the US appear weak at best. And millions of undocumented Mexican migrants (many with long histories and family ties in the United States) who had been anticipating amnesty will now spend more time locked into highly vulnerable employment situations as the possibility for an immigration policy with justice and dignity drops off the domestic agenda.

On this side of the Canada-US border, the implications are many and far-reaching; not the least of which being renewed calls for harmonization with the US border - under US terms. But a country's immigration policy is deeply connected to its foreign policy. Harmonizing the Canadian border with the US means an acceptance of the terms of American foreign policy - something that is likely to make us less secure, not more.

In Canada, border patrols and customs officials have already been directed to single out people from West Asia, South Asia and the Middle-East through "racial profiling" techniques that stereotypes and targets an entire group of people. This has already led to the harassment of people of colour and will assuredly continue to do so long into the future.

Long before the September 11th attack, the Canadian government introduced Bill C-11 even though many civil liberties, immigrant rights and other groups raised significant criticisms of it. As a recent Globe and Mail editorial comments, Bill C-11 already gives the federal government all the tools that it needs, and if anything is too sweeping: "critics argue the definition of terrorism is unclear and could unfairly be applied to too many people." (Sept. 19, A14)

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Afghans, terrified of massive US retaliation, are migrating to the Pakistan border where they hope to join the tens of thousands of Afghans already living in exile, in overcrowded and ill-equipped refugee camps in Pakistan. The hundreds of Afghans who got out weeks ago - who were, at gunpoint, denied entry into Australian territorial waters as a result of an ugly and racist backlash against refugees - were, in a sad twist, the "lucky" ones. They eventually found a safer place to land. Making it tougher for immigrants and refugees to find safer places will cause more human suffering and on a greater scale.

Making things tougher for immigrants and refugees is also not going to end terrorism. In the Oklahoma City bombing, we saw that the US is quite capable of producing terrorists. Timothy McVeigh, a decorated Gulf War veteran, was trained at the US Army School of the Americas (SOA) - known to its critics as the School of Assassins for its ruthless enforcement of US Cold War foreign policy in Latin America. There he learned to describe the children he murdered as merely "collateral damage" in his assault on the US government. Terrorism is not "out there" able to be stopped at the gates. As Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom commented on September 18, "The 1995 bombing in Oklahoma showed that the methods and tactics of modern terror had wormed their way deep into U.S. domestic culture." (A21)

So, what will it take? This is where it gets harder. In the long term, dealing with terrorism and religious fundamentalism (in all its forms) means a renewed effort to address global economic inequality, militarism, and the terror of US foreign policy.

In the short term, there is also much to do. We can:

1. speak out against racist, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim attacks, and ensure that the needs of victims (and those at risk for attack) are front and centre;
2. be vigilant about arrests, detentions, deportations and hearings carried out with no public oversight;
3. ensure that refugees produced by any US and allied military intervention find a safe and secure haven and that their basic human needs for food, shelter, medical care, and community are addressed;
4. circulate the criticisms of Bill C-11 that were raised by many community groups well before September 11th and call for renewed debate on the current direction of this legislation now before the Senate;
5. work with Canadian and US immigrant and refugee rights groups to ensure that no new draconian legislation or regulations are introduced.

Historically, wars and periods of national crisis have resulted in serious and unjustified losses of civil rights for many, and especially for immigrants, refugees, and people of colour. By working to build an anti-racist movement against war, we can try and avert the further loss of life and dignity.