Immigrants swept up in security debate. (2002 in Review).

In the roiling wake of Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to marshal the full might of the federal government and "every available statute" to root out "the terrorists among us."

The roundup that followed, conducted with wartime urgency and unusual secrecy, led to the detentions of at least 1,100 people nationwide suspected of having ties to terrorist groups.

The government's effort has produced few, if any, law enforcement coups. Most of the detainees have since been released or deported, with fewer than 200 still being held.

But, during the past year, the campaign sparked fiery demonstrations by immigrant rights groups, including several in Chicago, and provoked a sprawling legal battle that is redefining the delicate balance between individual liberties and national security.

At issue is the key question lawmakers have been grappling with since the terrorist attacks: Just how far can America go in the name of protecting itself? The interests of national security, the debate goes, must be weighed against constitutional guarantees, the safety of 280 million citizens squared against the rights of a few, or a few thousand, individuals.

From the beginning, the Bush administration has strained civil liberties protections as it vigorously enforced immigration law to conduct what the attorney general termed a "preventative campaign of arrest and detention."

The strategy has raised the ire of many critics, who charge that the government is exploiting the immigration system to conduct investigations that disregard the rights normally guaranteed in criminal proceedings.

"There's no question that immigration laws were used as a pretext for holding people while the government was figuring out what to do with them," said Tim Payne, an attorney who chairs the Chicago chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "In the criminal context, you can only hold somebody for so long before charging [him or her] with a crime. But, if you got somebody who had an immigration violation, then the government can hold them much longer."

Government officials say they have strictly enforced the Law--but not exceeded it.

"We have done everything within the bounds of our statutory authority," said Jorge Martinez, spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department. "These individuals have violated our immigration laws, and we have the authority to arrest and detain them--plain and simple."

According to Justice Department figures released last month, federal agents held 765 of the post-Sept. 11 detainees on immigration charges. Another 134 people were charged with relatively minor crimes not directly linked to terrorism.

Critics question whether there was sufficient evidence to justify many of the arrests. Most cases, they say, involved Arab or Muslim men who were arrested in fairly haphazard ways-at traffic stops or through tips from suspicious neighbors, for example.

Nonetheless, their claims have not been tested in court. When immigration lawyers have contested the detentions, the government has exercised its broad powers to deport. And when a detainee leaves the country; the legal challenge automatically becomes moot.

As a fallback strategy; lawyers have fought rules requiring that the cases be heard in secret, and they have leveraged those challenges into attacks on what they call unconstitutional "preventive detentions."

The government, however, asserts that immigration hearings are not really trials, but are merely administrative hearings that can be closed at will.

Critics say the difference is purely cosmetic. "The consequences of any such proceeding are detention and deportation, which are as severe as any criminal sanction," said Fred Tsao, immigration and citizenship director at the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.

In an affidavit submitted in several court cases, the government outlined another reasoning behind the secrecy: "Bits and pieces of information that may appear innocuous in isolation ... will allow the [terrorists] to build a picture of the investigation and to thwart the government's attempt to investigate and prevent terrorism."

So far, some courts have stopped short of endorsing the government's rationale.

In August, for example, a U.S. appeals court ruled that Detroit's newspapers had a right under the First Amendment to cover a bond hearing for Rabih Haddad, a Muslim cleric from Ann Arbor, Mich. Haddad co-founded the Global Relief Foundation, a Muslim charity based just outside Chicago, in southwest suburban Bridgeview.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stressed, however, that the case dealt only with whether the hearings can be closed to the public, not whether the government could detain or deport Haddad, who's charged with overstaying his tourist visa.

Noel Saleh, a Detroit attorney who represented Haddad, said his client's predicament was a somber case study of what is wrong with America's immigration system.

"Unfortunately, the system has always been used as a political tool--a convenient way of getting rid of people without having to prove anything," he said.

RELATED ARTICLE: Respect, Fairness--and Fingerprints

President George W. Bush appeared at a special swearing-in ceremony for new citizens in July 2001 on Ellis Island--back when visitors to that island could still see the World Trade towers hovering on the skyline.

Bush addressed his new "fellow Americans," and vowed that the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service would treat immigrants with respect and fairness.

"Immigration is not a problem to be solved," he said. "It is the sign of a confident and successful nation. ... New arrivals should be greeted not with suspicion and resentment but with openness and courtesy."

The devastating change to the skyline two months later, critics say, also turned Bush's promises to rubble.

This past year, some of those who've landed on US. soil were photographed and fingerprinted as soon as they stepped off their planes, while others were swept up from their homes into detention and secret trials.

These are the latest of dozens of changes--some implemented, some proposed--that subject immigrants to more scrutiny at a time when the country has more foreign-born residents than ever before.

* Address Change

The U.S. Department of Justice dusted off a little-used, 50-year-old law that requires 18 million non-citizens to notify the agency of address changes within 10 days of moving. It permits the INS to deport those who fail to comply.

* Attorney Client Communications

The Justice Department has authorized monitoring communication between those in federal custody and their attorneys if there is "reasonable suspicion" an inmate will use the contact to facilitate terrorist activity. Detainees must be notified in advance.

* Military Tribunals

Non-citizens suspected of involvement in terrorism may be tried in military tribunals, where the rules of evidence are much more lenient and only a two-thirds vote is needed to secure a conviction.

* Police Enforcement

The Justice Department reversed a long-standing policy that kept local and state police agencies from enforcing immigration laws. Most big-city police agencies, which depend on building trust in their communities, have already rejected this authority.

* Refugee Admissions

The United States admitted fewer than 28,000 of the 70,000 refugees it said it would accept last fiscal year, the lowest number since 1980. President Bush rejected calls from advocates and a bipartisan group of lawmakers to make up for the shortfall, and set a ceiling of 70,000 refugees for the current fiscal year.

* Special Registration

The Justice Department has implemented a tracking scheme that will require non-immigrant visitors from 20 countries to register with the government by providing fingerprints, photographs and other information. The registration is required of virtually all male non-citizens, 16 years or older, from these designated countries.

* Terrorist Information and Prevention System (TIPS) Program

The Justice Department unveiled TIPS with great fanfare to recruit Americans, including mail carriers, utility workers and others with access to people's homes, to watch their fellow Americans. The program was scaled back after public outcry.

* "Voluntary" Interview

The FBI fanned out across the country to question 5,000 newly arrived immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. However, prior to the interviews, the individuals were not suspected of having connections to terrorism.

Some say these measures are long overdue. "This is all about protecting the public," said David A. Gorak, executive director of the Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration, based in west suburban Lombard. "We are simply enforcing our laws, and we're taking those steps necessary to make sure that the American people can be kept as safe as possible."

But others say the government has cast too wide a net, creating an atmosphere of fear in immigrant communities. "Rather than identifying people who are involved in terrorism, we are instead sweeping up a lot of people who happen to fit the profile, or those who are simply out of valid immigration status," said Fred Tsao, immigration and citizenship director at the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. "All of this really sends a strong message that people just aren't welcome here."

On the Cover

Amid a sea of American flags, immigrant-rights advocates at an October rally in downtown Chicago urge Congress to reverse harsh policies enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which organized the rally, gave the state's Congressional delegation a D+ when it comes to protecting refugees and immigrants.