A STEP Act backward

Survival and competition requires the ability to differentiate the "good" from the "bad." Profit-maximizing firms install rigorous hiring processes to ensure the most suitable employees for open positions, and universities operate a specialized admissions process to distinguish between students of different calibers. Governments (assuming they are rational) also put selection mechanisms in place for both domestic and international purposes. On the foreign side, mechanisms applied in the immigration process establish a criteria that decides who enters the homeland and who does not.

These mechanisms, however, are neither complete nor perfect. They do not always successfully distinguish the "good" from the "bad," the bystander from the participant, the boon from the threat, and in the context of immigration process -- a terrorist from a person with citizenship from a terrorist-supporting state.

Going back to the examples -- a firm might incur costs for employing an unproductive employee and universities could admit under-qualified students who misuse or underutilize academic resources. The fatality of poor selection process in governance, unfortunately, befell the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 -- immigration selection processes had failed to identify incoming terrorists and their activities within the United States.

The response was a preemptive strategy -- the USA Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Department, Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), and many new processes. More recently, Congressman Gresham Barrett, R-SC, has introduced the Stop Terrorist Entry Program (the STEP Act), which would prevent individuals from terrorist-designated states from entering the United States. The Act would also require current non-immigrant visitors and students from those nations to leave the United States within 60 days.

Basically, if the bill is passed, Iranian, North Korean and Syrian students at Tufts would be forced to leave the United States. According to Congressman Gresham, "as we continue our war on terror, we must ensure others never step foot on our soil or gain access to our citizens and all that our nation holds dear, as well as make sure those who are already here are identified and dealt with accordingly."

A "STEP Act" response in the analogous scenarios would imply that firms should stop hiring new employees and universities should never admit under-qualified students. In this context, the Act sounds nonsensical. It neither solves the immediate immigration selection problem efficiently, nor does it address the larger issue at hand -- the war on terrorism and the US aspiration to win the "hearts and minds" of the Arab and Muslim world.

Proponents of such bills think that by keeping out Iranians, Syrians, and other citizens of "terrorist supporting states," they sustain safety and preempt any possible aggressions against Americans. However, they are utterly fallacious in their reasoning. Unfortunately, fear and insecurity following the events of Sept. 11, 2001 has induced many policymakers to opt for some irrational solutions that will prove detrimental in the long run to US interests in international affairs.

The US has responded differently in the past to similar circumstances. For example, immediately after World War II, Senator J. William Fulbright pushed for the Fulbright Program as a step toward building international cooperation. Since then, the program has provided more than 255,000 participants with the opportunity to observe each others' political, economic and cultural institutions, exchange ideas, and embark on joint ventures to increase the general welfare of the world's inhabitants.

This may sound utterly idealistic, but I believe that security and economic prosperity in the 21st century depends on increasing the capacity of people to think and work on a global and intercultural basis. One way to increase our capacity is precisely through initiatives such as the Fulbright Program and other academic and professional exchanges. These programs strengthen the ability of future leaders to think and act on a cooperative basis, and more importantly, prepare a new generation of global citizens.

Unfortunately, the STEP Act is precisely the barrier to such grassroots improvements in US international affairs. Perhaps rather than denying entry to the US, state agencies should invest some time and energy into improving the actual immigration selection process. It is tedious and challenging, but surely better than deporting all student nationals of terrorist supporting states.

Bills such as the STEP Act signal an emerging isolationist mentality which cannot effectively address the deep-rooted issues of 9/11. It is something that Congressmen and US politicians need to keep in mind before fence-mending the US borders.

Sara Mohammadi is a graduate student studying Economics.