Obama's illegal-immigrant crackdown fills prisons with Hispanics

Πηγή: CSM
By Patrik Jonsson
Oct 28 2011

A recent federal illegal-immigrant crackdown has led to thousands of arrests, having profound implications for Hispanics – most of whom are in the United States legally.

These days, many Americans are hardening their attitudes toward illegal immigration – driven in part by economic worries and fear of Mexico's narco-wars drifting north.
Much has been made of how this is playing out on the state level, with Arizona and Alabama among the states passing tough immigration laws.

But a crackdown, at least a partial one, has been happening at the federal level, too. A series of high-profile sweeps known as Operation Cross Check have netted thousands of what the Obama administration refers to as criminal aliens. And felony prosecutions for immigration crimes increased by 42 percent during President Obama's first two years in office, a factor in the record 400,000 deportations this fiscal year, according to data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, an immigration tracking agency at Syracuse University in Syracuse, N.Y.

While these developments may help address some longstanding concerns, they've also had profound implications for Hispanics – most of whom are in the United States legitimately, but some of whom make up the lion's share of the 11 million illegal immigrants in America. In fact, Hispanics are now the majority group being sent to federal prison, largely because of the criminal prosecution of repeat border jumpers.

Other disturbing trends, partially tied to the mass arrests of Hispanic male bread­winners, are also emerging. For the first time, more Hispanic than white children are living in poverty. The unemployment rate for Hispanics is hovering around 25 percent. College-bound rates for Hispanic teenagers are flagging, and their grade school test scores are, on the whole, poor when compared with those of blacks, whites, and Asians.

"It's unclear ... [whether] officials who are making decisions [about sweeps and increased prosecution] are really comprehending the kinds of social policy implications that they raise," says Deborah Denno, a law professor at Fordham University in New York. "You're taking massive numbers of people and incarcerating them, which means they can't support their families, which leads to serious repercussions."

Taken together, the crackdowns on Hispanics and unflattering statistics about them have begun to affect their image in America. In particular, the line has been blurred between the broader Hispanic population and outright lawbreakers – the result being the growing persecution of all Hispanic-looking people.

"The discourse right now is that all Latinos are immigrants, and if they're all immigrants, then there's the suspicion that they're all illegal, which means they're criminals," says Allert Brown-Gort, associate director of the Institute for Latino Studies at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. "And if they're criminals, the thinking goes, that means we don't want them here."

Yet the 50 million Hispanics in the US are likely to be a key voting bloc in the 2012 elections. Presidential candidates have been trying to appeal to this group – while also appearing tough on illegal immigration.

In 2008, Mr. Obama won the majority of Hispanic support. But with the increase in felony prosecutions, he now appears to be appeasing America's "law and order" impulses. Meanwhile, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who as a GOP presidential candidate has defended in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, has come across as a critic of "heartless" laws and policies aimed at Hispanic immigrants.

"When people think about border enforcement and immigration, they don't always think about people," says Kevin Johnson, dean of the University of California, Davis, School of Law, as well as a noted immigration law expert. "That's why President [George W.] Bush and Governor Perry had a better understanding of immigration, because they saw that there were people and families involved ... and that it's inhumane and unfair to treat people as if they're not human."

Still, the Obama administration has not launched an indiscriminate crackdown. In a controversial decision this summer, ICE Director John Morton urged agents and US attorneys to end prosecutions against nonfelony immigration scofflaws, including students who may have come to the country as infants and older Hispanics who have been in the US for many years. ICE is balancing that approach with stepped-up prosecutions for repeat border jumpers and convicted felons.

"Smart and effective immigration enforcement relies on setting priorities for removal and executing on those priorities," Mr. Morton said in an Oct. 17 statement, adding that the administration's new discretionary policy is working. "These year-end totals indicate that we are making progress, with more convicted criminals, recent border crossers, egregious immigration law violators, and immigration fugitives being removed from the country than ever before."

Supporters of ICE crackdowns and tougher laws say the costs of illegal immigrants outweigh the benefits, especially given the group's perceived ties to border crime and drug trafficking.

The trend of locking up Mexicans and taking other measures against them is part of a bigger societal warning: Get legal or get out. Indeed, scaring illegal immigrants away or putting them in jail is "the intended consequence of Alabama's legislation," US Rep. Mo Brooks (R) of Alabama said recently.

Yet the larger Hispanic community has felt the impact. Some immigrants, both legal and illegal, have gone from protesting in the streets five years ago to living in fear in places like Alabama.

"When you look at all these problems – poverty, unemployment, number of immigrants going to prison or being deported – through the lens of each individual, you get one story," says Patricia Foxen, associate director of research at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization based in Washington. "But when you add it all together, it's absolutely huge."

Collinsville, a small town on the ridge of Lookout Mountain in northeast Alabama, offers a close-up view. Hispanics, and especially their children, have become part of this community's fabric, working in poultry plants and in tomato and sweet-potato fields. Half the stores in the one-block downtown are Hispanic-owned. But after the Alabama immigration law expanded police powers, many have left and others are holed up in their homes. Even those here legally feel unwelcome.

That's true for Lulu Alvarez, a legal Mexican immigrant who works at a poultry plant. Suddenly, she says, people here "think all Hispanics are the same, and they treat everybody the same way, as though we're all in the country illegally."

Several years ago, Collinsville resident Mickey Williams wrote to the local paper about how illegal Hispanic migrants were depressing wages, which hurts American workers in the area. But he also rents apartments to Hispanic families. A day after a judge upheld most of the Alabama law, one of his apartments was empty of people, but still full of their belongings.

"I have such mixed emotions, but at the end of the day, I think [prosecutions and crackdowns] are not the right thing to do," says Mr. Williams. "It's a terrible price to pay for trying to do better for yourself and for your kids."

Despite the record deportation numbers and skyrocketing Hispanic prison population, the Obama administration still faces criticism from conservatives who say it's attempting to pave a way toward amnesty for many illegal immigrants. Nevertheless, the new prosecutorial priorities could create an uncomfortable legacy for the Obama administration.

"It's pretty clear that this was not foreseeable ... that there would be such a large percentage [of Hispanics] in federal prison," says Professor Denno. "It's not a success for people who are incarcerated, and it's not a success for the future of the country."

Obama administration widens challenges to state immigration laws

Πηγή: Washington Post
By Jerry Markon

Sep 29 2011

The Obama administration is escalating its crackdown on tough immigration laws, with lawyers reviewing four new state statutes to determine whether the federal government will take the extraordinary step of challenging the measures in court.

Justice Department attorneys have sued Arizona and Alabama, where a federal judge on Wednesday allowed key parts of that state’s immigration law to take effect but blocked other provisions. Federal lawyers are talking to Utah officials about a third possible lawsuit and are considering legal challenges in Georgia, Indiana and South Carolina, according to court documents and government officials.

The level of federal intervention is highly unusual, legal experts said, especially because civil rights groups already have sued most of those states. Typically, the government files briefs or seeks to intervene in other lawsuits filed against state statutes.

“I don’t recall any time in history that the Justice Department has so aggressively challenged state laws,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University Law School.

The legal skirmishing was triggered by last year’s Arizona law, which requires that police check immigration status if they stop someone while enforcing other laws. Amid a fierce national debate, a Justice Department lawsuit led federal courts to block that measure’s most contested provisions, but similar laws were approved in recent months in Alabama, Utah, Georgia, Indiana and South Carolina. At least 17 other states have considered such measures this year.

Although Wednesday’s ruling in Alabama was something of a setback, the Justice Department and civil rights groups have been on a winning streak. The ACLU and other groups have obtained rulings temporarily blocking all or key parts of immigration laws in Utah, Georgia and Indiana, with Republican- and Democrat-appointed judges blasting the measures as devoid of due process protections or for targeting illegal immigrants.

Now, the administration is under pressure from some quarters to intervene in those states, as well as South Carolina, where a new immigration law is set to take effect Jan. 1. Civil rights groups have been lobbying the White House and Justice and State departments, according to people familiar with the effort, and the ACLU is circulating an online petition calling for federal lawsuits. More than 23,000 people have signed.

On the other side, Utah is lobbying the government to stay out. Mark Shurtleff (R), that state’s attorney general, has met with senior Justice officials, who he said are considering whether to join the civil rights lawsuit as a plaintiff.

“We believe our defense is much better if the Justice Department is not the one saying our law is superseded by federal law,” said Shurtleff, who added that Utah “worked very hard and carefully to make our law different from Arizona” so it is constitutional.

The legal maneuvering comes as immigration is flaring as a political issue, with many conservatives and GOP presidential candidates calling for a hard line on the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.
Conservatives have criticized the Obama administration for suing Arizona and Alabama, and some legal observers said they detect political motives in the administration’s additional legal steps. The White House and Obama’s reelection campaign have been trying to rekindle excitement among Hispanic voters, many of whom have been disappointed over his immigration policies.

“It suggests that they are waiting to test the political winds and see if this is good or bad for the Obama administration,” said Kris Kobach, a former senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration who is helping Arizona and Alabama defend the lawsuits.

Justice officials have denied any political motives and said they are proceeding based on the facts and the law. Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. have been critical of the state measures, with the president recently saying: “We can’t have 50 different immigration laws around the country.’’

Xochitl Hinojosa, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said lawyers are reviewing the Utah, Indiana, Georgia and South Carolina laws and the “legal principles” established in the Arizona case. “Based on that review and applying those principles, the United States will decide whether and when to bring suit challenging particular state laws,” Hinojosa said.

Hovering over the debate is the possible involvement of the Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in April that the most contested parts of Arizona’s immigration law will remain blocked from taking effect. They include provisions allowing for warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants and criminalizing the failure of immigrants to carry registration papers.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) is seeking Supreme Court review, and the court could decide to hear the case this term. That would mean a decision before the 2012 presidential election, one that would affect the other state laws as well.

“My guess is that they will take it,” said Jonathan Benner, a Washington lawyer who has argued numerous cases involving federal-state conflicts. “This is the kind of case that is most interesting to the Supreme Court.”

The state statutes, signed into law over the past five months, include a range of provisions, including authorizing police to question people’s immigration status in a variety of circumstances, limiting the ability of immigrants to use certain forms of identification and criminalizing the harboring or transport of illegal immigrants.

The Justice Department and civil rights groups are arguing that the law will lead to racial profiling and that they are “preempted” under federal law, which gives the federal government control of immigration enforcement.

“You’d have to be crazy to pass one of these laws, knowing you’re buying yourself an enormous lawsuit,” said Cecilia D. Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. She called the Alabama statute, signed into law in June, “by far the most draconian and extreme.”

The Justice Department and a coalition of civil rights groups sued over the law, which caused particular outrage because it requires public school officials to determine citizenship by seeking children’s birth certificates. Civil rights advocates say that will keep some children out of school because their parents will fear being deported.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn allowed that provision to take effect, along with other elements of the law, until she can issue a final ruling. But she temporarily blocked other provisions, including those making it crimes for illegal immigrants to solicit work and to transport or harbor them.

Alabama lawyers have backed the law’s constitutionality, and Gov. Robert Bentley (R) on Wednesday called it “the strongest immigration law in the country.” Other states also have defended their laws, with some accusing the federal government of failing to stem the growing problem of illegal immigration.

But some judges have been highly critical. In Indiana, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker in June blocked the two most contested parts of that state’s law. The provisions would authorize warrantless arrests of illegal immigrants in certain circumstances and make it a crime to accept an identification card used by many immigrants.

Barker, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, called the law “seriously flawed” and said that it was completely “void” of due process protections for immigrants and that parts of the state’s defense were “entirely fanciful.”

The judge also had strong words for all of the new state immigration laws, calling them “tortuous attempts to carve out legally permissible roles that do not run afoul of federal jurisdictional and constitutional requirements.”

Indiana officials are defending the law as the case proceeds toward trial in November. Greg Zoeller (R), that state’s attorney general, said the judge’s ruling “can be seen as an indictment of the federal government on their failure to enact and enforce immigration policy.”

Labour’s embarrassing immigration secrets revealed

The secret reports show that more than 15 per cent of people coming from Bulgaria and Romania were claiming out-of-work benefits

Πηγή: The Telegraph
By Patrick Hennessy
Sep. 24 2011

Reports kept under wraps by Labour showing that immigrants who came to Britain from Romania and Bulgaria had low education levels and were more likely to claim out-of-work benefits are to be released for the first time by ministers.

The figures are contained in five separate controversial studies commissioned by the last Labour government but never published - amid claims the party wanted to avoid a damaging row about its record before last year’s general election.

Ministers accused Labour of a “disturbing cover up” and promised to publish the reports - which cost the taxpayer a total of £165,000 and have now been seen by The Sunday Telegraph - in full within days.

The documents also contain revelations that immigrants from all countries into Britain are more likely to be out of work than the native population - and are less likely to engage in any form of “civic participation.”

More than one third of London’s population, moreover, has now been born outside the UK.

The release will turn the spotlight once again on the party’s controversial record on immigration. Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, used a weekend interview to admit the party had “got things wrong” on the issue.

Up until 2008 the Labour government was criticised for effectively operating an “open door” policy which saw a massive rise in the number of visas, work permits and extended residency being granted.

Gordon Brown’s government then introduced a new “points based” system which was designed to make it harder for non-skilled people to come to Britain from outside the European Union.

However, particular controversy surrounded the rules governing immigration from countries which joined the EU during the first decade of this century - which included Bulgaria and Romania (which joined in 2007) and Poland (2004).

Labour ministers repeatedly promised that restrictions would be placed on those coming in from Eastern Europe in order to “manage” numbers and protect jobs for British workers.

However, the secret reports show that 27 per cent of people coming from Bulgaria and Romania had “low education levels” while as of 2009 more than 15 per cent of them were claiming out-of-work benefits.

The documents, commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) reveal that immigrants from the two countries are more likely to claim unemployment-related benefits than either non-immigrants or other migrant groups in Britain.

A report said that despite the implementation of a “cap” on numbers, the migration rate into Britain from Romania and Bulgaria increased significantly after the countries joined the EU in 2007.

Meanwhile, migrants from the two countries were shown to be more likely to have four children or more than people coming to Britain from elsewhere - placing a significant strain on the education system, particularly in London where over half the Bulgarians and Romanians who came settled.

More than three in every 100 migrants from Bulgaria and Romania had five children or more.

One of the five reports, Identifying Social and Economic Push and Pull Factors for Migration to the UK by Bulgarian and Romanian Nationals, showed that while Bulgaria’s and Romania’s population declined between 2004 and 2010, Britain’s increased considerably.

During that period the two countries’ unemployment rate fell, while the UK’s rose.

Another report on overall immigration, The Socio-Economic Integration of Migrants, claimed: “Immigrants in the UK exhibit lower employment rates than natives....Immigrants are on average less likely than natives to engage in any form civic participation.”

A further document, Drivers of International Migration, stated: “The increase in immigration into the UK since the mid 1990s is entirely explained by a rise in the number of foreign-born people migrating to the UK from abroad, rather than by returning UK-born people.”

At the start of the 1980s the key annual “net immigration” figure for the UK was minus 42,000 - meaning tens of thousands more people left Britain every year than came here.

By 1992-95 this figure had gone up to plus 9,200 - while by the period between 2004 and 2007 it had mushroomed to plus 178,000 a year.

Britain’s population was slated to increase by more than four million to 65.6 million between 2008 and 2018, while by 2008 over one third of London’s population (34 per cent) was born outside Britain.

Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, said: “This is another disturbing cover-up by a Labour Party that failed on immigration and then tried to bury the truth.

“‘This Government is bringing immigration under control to restore public confidence in the system left broken by Labour.”

The Coalition’s policy of putting an overall cap on immigrant numbers from outside the EU is designed to reduce net migration to Britain significantly.

David Cameron said in a speech in April that it should be “in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade.”

Damian Green, the Immigration Minister, said: “We have cut down on sham marriages, we have brought in a variety of policies which curb the number of people coming into the country and then overstay.

And we will continue to look at how we can further improve the balance between the people who at value coming into the country and those who do not.”

Labour’s record on immigration sparked bitter debates before last year’s election, exemplified by unguarded “bigoted woman” comments during the campaign by Mr Brown, on an open microphone, about Gillian Duffy, a Rochdale grandmother, when she questioned the former prime minister on it.

In an interview this weekend Ms Cooper admitted: "We did get things wrong on immigration.

"We should have had the transitional controls on migration from Eastern Europe. We should have introduced the points-based system much earlier.”

4 Real reasons for London’s riots

Πηγή: The Coming Depression
August 9th, 2011 at 11:07 am


“This is not a surprise at all because social breakdown is a slow process. Some years ago We came to the sad conclusion that the UK was spiraling downwards in front of many peoples eyes – and despite effort on many peoples parts to make it a better place. For decades UK political “leaders” have been asleep at the wheel.

From the spawn of Thatcher’s “there is no such thing as society”, through Blair’s “I only care about my image on the international stage”, to Brown’s “give out lots of money, but expect no social responsibility, from people who might vote for me”. We think the problems are deep and pretty much ubiquitous.

Indeed, the societal breakdown of Europe is going to plan as evidenced by the UK’s secret policy to employ mass immigration to destroy national identity. As the Daily Mail shows, “Labour threw open the doors to mass migration in a deliberate policy to change the social make-up of the UK, secret papers suggest. A draft report from the Cabinet Office shows that ministers wanted to ‘maximise the contribution’ of migrants to their ‘social objectives’. The number of foreigners allowed in the UK increased by as much as 50 per cent in the wake of the report, written in 2000.”

Despite attempts to paint this as some sort of ethnically-neutral event, ethnicity was a big factor here. The supposed trigger was the shooting of a gun-toting Yardie, who brandished his weapon at police. Even in Toronto’s recent parade melee, with a similar chain of events (Gangster of Colour shot dead by police, for refusing to drop his weapon), the streets didn’t go ablaze. There are many reasons for this, but the big one is that the ‘community’ from which the dead thug hailed was a VERY SMALL minority of the local population. Contrast this to the Villanueva riots, or even the Quarter Million Tamil March. Along with everything else, Britain has to take a hard look at how decades of mass immigration–which dramatically increased during the New Labour era–and multiculturalism created ethnic enclaves of people who avenge the deaths of their criminal heroes.


Humiliation: A young man is forced to strip to his underpants in the street, having apparently already handed his t-shirt and trainers to a black looter. There were unconfirmed reports last night of victims being made to strip in Deptford, south London, and in Birmingham.

And it’s not just third world immigration that’s the problem, but the EU’s no-border policies that are exacerbating ethnic and economic tensions, by removing Britain’s control over its population. A nation-state can’t function without control over who settles within its boundaries. Britain is experiencing this, with EU immigration (Eastern Europeans, etc.), which is overwhelming local housing and social services. A similar problem exists in U.S. border states, which have defacto open borders with Mexico: laws like SB 1070 (requiring state and local police to enforce Federal immigration law) arising out frustration with both ‘sanctuary cities’ and a Federal Government which simply refuses to enforce border or immigration controls. And, in Britain, it was the Right’s heroine, Maggie Thatcher, who started dismantling border controls, by getting rid of exit visas.

The last rounds of riots in London over the past year were the last gasp of the middle class kids there: post secondary education fees tripled in one fell swoop.

For those kids with even LESS options in life? A sense of even less to lose.

This isn’t apologetics. The conditions of poverty and consumer culture gone mad (the hottest items to loot are new tracksuits and the latest sneakers no doubt) bring out the horde of kids who advertising most aggressively targets, drunk on instant gratification and all the hatred and frustration they discovered when the paradise of false dreams was denied them.

All the destruction and looting is deplorable. Something has goaded them into it however. The long history of crime, mob culture and “us and them” in London carries on, yet another chapter cited by Dickens when he wrote “the best of times, the worst of times.” That place thrives and kills itself on contradictions. The default state of an uneasy peace will return to the streets, with less amplified tantrums of their cult of youth, wanting it all but having it constantly denied. Most of them *will* grow up. Others will turn to a quieter desperation of self-destructivity.

This is not only Britain’s problem but our problem everywhere across our world, in the West, the East and the Centre where hordes of young people without education, unread, unlearned, ignorant but not stupid, loutish, lazy without prospects or futures, understanding, compassion, empathy, jobs and especially without hope of ever legitimately getting the ‘stuff’ they crave, cars, televisions, clothes, shoes, bling and baubles. You know, the things pushed at them relentlessly every few minutes while they’re watching their parents television sets in their parents houses in the bedrooms they’ve inhabited since childhood, the very ‘stuff’ that our economic system depends on to grow and fatten the wallets of investors and traders, speculators, bank presidents, corporate CEOs and all the other non-producers who also live pointless all-consuming lives but with ‘stuff’ they own and think they have worked for and therefore deserve, all this is the reason that the many without ‘stuff’ want ‘stuff’ and will burn, smash, pillage and take what they want at will, while the authorities agonize and in puzzlement continue to ask, Why?

The moral-economy riot is a well established phenomenon. This type of riot occurred routinely in 18th century England due to food shortages. During the Cholera epidemic, communities rioted in Britain because the poor felt exploited. We are probably seeing the effects of perceived socially deterministic conditions on strong community identities reinforced by their shared economic status. The police cannot stem the belief systems that people create to cope with perceived exploitation. Today we have food being priced out of reach to the general populations of even places like US where food stamp use has been increasing dramatically in recent years due to inflation caused by the devaluation of fiat currency.

So, in bad times, it is really convenient to think that affluent people can just give up on the poor. They can cut off a part of society and assume compliance. But this behavior also permits the crowds to create their own perceptions of legitimacy. Of course, sometimes the crowds actually win.

Riots on the way for North America, Canada, USA

There is a growing proportion of under 30 self employed individuals in North America. Canada’s new jobs in May (22,000) were in the retail sector and almost all of the rest were in self employment. For the regular to high paying jobs, Canadians are being forced to compete with educated and skilled immigrants, many of whom are among the most educated in their home countries which have many times more people than Canada.

Higher self employment figures means less job security making it harder for young adults to settle down and have a family.

Once the US cuts kick in, in a few years, this will happen in the USA.
Fake conservative economists say foodstamps have to be cancelled, as the US can’t afford to feed its children. As the billionaires can’t afford 1% more in tax. When those cuts hit the US underclass, its going to be a disaster far worse than this. Indeed, food stamps are being cut left and right in the US as we speak.

The real criminals are the politicians who fight deficits on the backs of the poor and middle class and all the greedy voters who support them. Trimming deficits requires careful and efficient budgeting AND increasing progressive tax rates in order to fund critical public assets (education, libraries, parks, etc.) and social and health services. Wealth is very, very disproportionately concentrated in a small percentage of the population and they just idly play with it. Time to redistribute assets more equitably. Sounds like revolution is in the air.

Islamist Terrorism in Europe: Could Greece Be Next?

Muslim immigrants at a rally in Athens, Greece in 2009

Πηγή: The Jamestown Foudation

By: Panos A. Kostakos

Islamist Terrorism in Europe: Could Greece Be Next?
Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 37
October 4, 2010 01:01 PM


Radical Islamist groups, including al-Qaeda, have the means and resources to target European citizens both in Europe and abroad. However, Islamist terrorist groups have not yet directly hit Greece. Why is that the case?

From a strategic standpoint, Greece is not a major player in the “war on terrorism.” The country has not deployed any troops in Iraq and the Greek troops currently stationed in Afghanistan participate mainly in low risk engineering and medical activities as well as training missions (To Bhma Online [Athens], August 31). Furthermore, there is a cultural explanation. Modern Greeks, Afghans and Palestinians share a common history and mythology that can be traced back to Alexander the Great. [1] Al-Qaeda leaders have always shown an interest in exploiting the mythology of civilizations and have used soft power to gain a strategic advantage against their adversaries.

Thus, in theory, an attack against Greece lacks the symbolism and strategic interest that al-Qaeda seeks for the construction of its own mythology, identity and propaganda. However, these observations do not necessarily erase the possibility that radical Islamic groups are trying to gain a foothold in Greece.

Indeed, there is a pragmatic expectation that radical Islamist groups could participate in low-risk assignments and psychological operations (such as recruitment, funding, propaganda and training) that would not be easily detected by Greek or other authorities. The Greek context facilitates such operations for a number of reasons:

• Geographical proximity to countries that export radicalism


• Illegal migration and porous borders


• Social unrest


• A growing Muslim community


• Indigenous terrorist networks

• Corruption in the private and public sectors

These are just some of the pieces of the puzzle that make this scenario ever more realistic (see Terrorism Monitor, August 2, 2007).

However, is there hard evidence to support the assertion that such a secretive radical organization exists in Greece? Confidential reports and interviews with informants suggest that there is fire behind the smoke. [2]

Various intelligence sources conclude that the Greek immigration policy has deterred many radical Islamist networks from establishing permanent ties in the country. A security brief issued during the 2004 Olympic Games noted, “The legal environment was for many years an obstacle for the growth and development of organized networks that could operate overtly or covertly using religious and cultural organizations and NGOs as legitimate fronts.” This policy, however, unintentionally leads many groups to go underground.

The Greek secret service has mapped a transnational network of radicals that has been developing in Greece over the years. Field informants indicate that this semi-legal web spreads across five different communities, including:

• Mosques and local Muslim communities

• Humanitarian organizations and NGOs

• Islamic cultural centers in Europe

• Foreign political, economic and religious elites

• International Islamist terrorist organizations

The key members of this network (referred to as “The Union of Mosques” or “The Union of Imams”) have military training and combat experience and are well connected with terrorist groups, foreign governments and the Muslim Diaspora in Europe (mainly in Britain, Italy and France). They use criminal activities to finance and facilitate their ideological objectives. The most noticeable illegal activities they conduct are passport forging, arms trafficking, people smuggling and drug trafficking. Finally, according to the same sources, the network has developed an internal structure to support fundraising, recruitment and counter intelligence activities.

The confluence of actors and structures reported in the intelligence files indicates strong links with other European capitals. This conclusion gains additional support when cross-referencing surveillance reports and open source intelligence. Arrests of Islamist radicals in Europe will often trigger changes in the everyday routines of some members of the network in Greece. Members of the network were, for instance, advised to change their appearance, shave their beards, move to a friendly country and avoid talking openly when meeting in mosques or in other public places. Changes in the modus operandi of the network were also recorded in the immediate aftermath of the London and Madrid bombings.

A number of economic, political and cultural issues could have a direct impact on the security of Greece. These include:

• Liberalization of immigration laws

• Stronger bilateral economic and military relations between Israel, Cyprus, Greece and the United States (see Hurriyet, September 29)

• Oil extraction in the Aegean Sea

• Radicalization of Turkish Muslims (see Ta Nea [Athens], June 16; To Vima tis Kiriakis [Athens], May 30)

• The political role of the Muslim minority in Greece and the growing legal/illegal Muslim community in Athens and Thessaloniki

• The Macedonian name dispute

An attack is unlikely to occur in the current situation. However, future developments on the aforementioned political, socio-cultural and economic issues could change this dynamic and activate or radicalize Islamist networks in Greece. So far, the network based in Greece performs mainly non-violent activities, but provides support for other groups based in larger European cities. Future political decisions could tilt the network toward more militant activities.

Notes:

1. Early Muslim scholars for example, believed that Dhul-Qarnain (“the two-horned”), a pre-Islamic figure mentioned in the Koran (XVIII, 83-98), was Alexander the Great. See: R. A. Anderson, “Alexander's Horns,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 58, (1927) pp. 100-122.
2. The documents were supplied by a retired officer of the Greek secret service.
Interviews with high ranking officers from the police and the secret services were conducted in Athens in the summer of 2008 and in the fall of 2009 for a more updated assessment.