* Charles F. Nagel Professor of International Law, School of Law, Washington University in St. Louis. I have benefited from the superb research assistance of Stacie Powderly. Much of the work on this Article was completed during a visiting appointment at the University of Cambridge, Center for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, to whom I am also grateful.
1 International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature Mar. 7, 1966, 660 U.N.T.S. 195 (entered into force Jan. 4, 1969) [hereinafter Race Convention]. This Convention was ratified by the U.S. Senate on October 21, 1994 and entered into force for the United States on November 20, 1994. See Louis Henkin et al., Human Rights Documentary Supplement 180 (2001) [hereinafter Henkin Doc. Supp.].
2 E.g., International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the General Assembly Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976) [hereinafter ICCPR]. This Convention was ratified by the U. S. Senate on June 8, 1992 and entered into force for the United States on September 8, 1992. See Henkin Doc. Supp., supra note 1, at 57. Article 26 of the ICCPR guarantees equal protection of the law. ICCPR, supra, art. XXVI, 999 U.N.T.S. at 179. The United States is also a member of the Organization of American States (OAS). See Charter of the Organization of American States, Apr. 30, 1948, 119 U.N.T.S. 3, 48 n.1 (ratified by the United States on June 15, 1951), available at http://untreaty.un.org. As a member of the OAS, the United States has committed itself to the principles of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, OAS Res. XXX, International Conference of American States, 9th Conf., OAS Doc. OEA/ser. L./V./I.4 rev. (1948), reprinted in [1978] Organization of American States, Handbook of Existing Rules Pertaining to Human Rights 15, OAS Doc. OEA/ser. L./V./II.23, doc. 21 rev. 5. Article II of the Declaration guarantees the right of equality before the law. Cf. American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969, arts. 1.1, 24, 27.1, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123, O.A.S.T.S. No. 36, OAS/Ser. L/V/I.4 rev. 7, at 23 (entered into force July 18, 1978). The United States has not ratified the Convention, but it is possibly binding nonetheless. See Louis Henkin et al., Human Rights 343 (1999).
3 E.g., Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the General Assembly Nov. 20, 1989, art. 2.1, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3; African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, Jan. 7–19, 1981, art. 2, 21 I.L.M. 59; International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, adopted by the General Assembly Dec. 16, 1966, art. 2.2, 993 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter ICESCR]; Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, art. 14, 213 U.N.T.S. 221.
4 For some excellent commentary on that subject, see, for example, David Cole, Enemy Aliens (2003) [hereinafter Enemy Aliens book]; Susan M. Akram & Kevin R. Johnson, Race, Civil Rights, and Immigration Law After September 11, 2001: The Targeting of Arabs and Muslims, 58 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 295, 327–55 (2003); David Cole, Enemy Aliens, 54 Stan. L. Rev. 953 (2002) [hereinafter Enemy Aliens article]; Samuel R. Gross & Katherine Y. Barnes, Road Work: Racial Profiling and Drug Interdiction on the Highway, 101 Mich. L. Rev. 651, 732–44 (2002) (considering both Fourth Amendment and equal protection limitations); Kevin R. Johnson, The Case Against Race Profiling in Immigration Enforcement, 78 Wash. U. L.Q. 675, 680–96 (2000); Victor C. Romero, Proxies for Loyalty in Constitutional Immigration Law: Citizenship and Race After September 11, 52 DePaul L. Rev. 871, 883–90 (2003); cf. Leti Volpp, The Citizen and the Terrorist, 49 UCLA L. Rev. 1575, 1576–86 (2002) (relating government-sponsored racial profiling to private sector hate crimes).
5 To avoid duplication and accommodate space constraints, this Section summarizes and excerpts from my recent, more detailed description of the various immigration-related U.S. national security initiatives, Stephen H. Legomsky, Supplement to Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy, ch. 8A (2003). The reader is referred to the full version for additional detail. See also Muzaffar A. Chishti et al., America’s Challenge: Domestic Security, Civil Liberties, and National Unity After September 11 (2003) (providing an excellent and comprehensive critique of post-September 11 developments); Donald Kerwin, Counterterrorism and Immigrant Rights Two Years Later, 80 Interpreter Releases 1401, 1401–07 (Oct. 13, 2003); Natsu Taylor Saito, Whose Security? The USA PATRIOT Act in the Context of COINTELPRO and the Unlawful Repression of Political Dissent, 81 Or. L. Rev. 1051, 1111–132 (2002).
6 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), § 236(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (1999); Aliens and Nationality, 8 C.F.R. § 236(c)(8) (2004).
7 INA § 236(c)(1)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(D). The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of mandatory detention pending the removal of noncitizens on crime-related grounds. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003); see also Lee Hall, Nomads under the Tent of Blue: Migrants Fuel the U.S. Prison Industry, Rutgers Race & L. Rev. (forthcoming 2004).
8 See DHS to Detain Asylum Seekers Under “Operation Liberty Shield”, 24 Refugee Reps. 5, 5 (Mar./Apr. 2003). Operation Liberty Shield lasted only one month; Secretary Ridge announced the program’s termination in his National Press Club Luncheon Address on April 29, 2003. See Cole, Enemy Aliens book, supra note 4, at 51, 249 n.23.
9 See American Immigration Lawyers Association, Boiling the Frog Slowly: Executive Branch Actions Since September 11, 2001, 7 Bender’s Immigr. Bull. 1236, 1236–44 (2002) [hereinafter Boiling the Frog Slowly].
10 8 C.F.R. § 3.19(i)(2) (2002). In 2003, the INS and its functions were incorporated into the DHS via the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), Pub. L. No. 107–296, § 428, 116 Stat. 2135, 2187–89.
11 See David Cole, In Aid of Removal: Due Process Limits on Immigration Detention, 51 Emory L.J. 1003, 1030–31 (2002).
12 See Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, The September 11 Detainees: A Review of the Treatment of Aliens Held on Immigration Charges in Connection with the Investigation of the September 11 Attacks 69–70 (2003), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0306/full.pdf [hereinafter OIG Report].
13 See OIG Report, supra note 12, at 20–23.
14 See Ctr. for Nat’l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 331 F.3d 918, 923, 933 (D.C. Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 (2003); Natsu Taylor Saito, Will Force Trump Legality After September 11? American Jurisprudence Confronts the Rule of Law, 17 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 1, 6–7 (2002).
15 66 Fed. Reg. 55,062, 55,066 (Oct. 31, 2001) (recently codified at 28 C.F.R. § 501.3(d) (2002)).
16 Angelo A. Paparelli & John C. Valdez, Never Say “i” (Unless You Must): Employment-Based Options for Adjustment of Status That Avoid INA § 245(i), 78 Interpreter Releases 1733, 1743–44 (Nov. 12, 2001). For a contrary view, see Jan C. Ting, Unobjectionable But Insufficient—Federal Initiatives in Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attacks, 34 Conn. L. Rev. 1145, 1151–52 (2002) (arguing that preventing the deaths of thousands of innocent people would justify monitoring the conversations of terrorists).
17 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No.107–56, § 412, 115 Stat. 272, 350–52 (2001) (adding INA § 236A).
18 INA § 236A(a)(6), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(3) (2004). For a strong critique, see Cole, supra note 11, at 1026–28.
19 OIG Report, supra note 12, at 27–28 n.28.
20 Military Order of Nov. 13, 2001: Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism § 2(a), 66 Fed. Reg. 57,833 (Nov. 16, 2001).
21 Id.
22 See Daryl A. Mundis, Agora: Military Commissions: The Use of Military Commissions to Prosecute Individuals Accused of Terrorist Acts, 96 Am. J. Int’l. L. 320, 320–21 (2002); Saito, supra note 14, at 10–11. The Supreme Court has held that both citizen combatants detained on the U.S. mainland and non-U.S. citizen combatants detained on Guantanamo may use habeas corpus to assert certain procedural due process protections. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S. Ct. 2633, 2643–52 (2004) (citizens); Rasul v. Bush, 124 S. Ct. 2686, 2696–99 (2004) (noncitizens).
23 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–546, 3009–548 to 3009–549 (1996) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.).
24 See, e.g., Stanley Mailman & Stephen Yale-Loehr, The Price of Tracking Overstays, 3 Bender’s Immigr. Bull. 179, 179–82 (1998).
25 See Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000, Pub. L. No.106–215, 114 Stat. 337, 337–42 (2000); Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 105–277, tit. XIII, § 116, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681–88 (1998).
26 Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (EBSVERA), Pub. L. No. 107–173, §§ 302, 303, 116 Stat. 543, 552–54 (2002).
27 INA §§ 262, 265(a), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1302, 1305(a) (1999).
28 INA §§ 237(a)(3)(A), 266(b), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(3)(A), 1306(b) (1999).
29 See Registering and Monitoring of Certain Nonimmigrants, 67 Fed. Reg. 40,581, 40,548–86 (proposed June 13, 2002) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214, 264); Registering and Monitoring of Certain Nonimmigrants, 67 Fed. Reg. 52,584, 52,584–93 (Aug. 12, 2002) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214(f), 264.1(f)).
30 Aliens and Nationality, 8 C.F.R. § 264. See generally Howard W. Gordon & Nancy H. Morawetz, Special Registration: A Nightmare for Foreign Visitors, Immigr. L. Today, Mar./Apr. 2003, at 42, 44.
31 See Rachel L. Swarns, More Than 13,000 May Face Deportation, N.Y. Times, June 7, 2003, at A1.
32 See generally Susan N. Burgess, SEVIS: Is It Academic?, Immigr. Briefings 1, 1-25 (Feb. 2004); Victor C. Romero, Noncitizen Students and Immigration Policy Post-9/11, 17 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 357, 357–66 (2003).
33 IIRIRA, Pub. L. No. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–546, 3009–704 to 3009–707 (1996) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.).
34 USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. No. 107–56, § 416, 115 Stat. 272, 354–55 (2001).
35 Id. § 507.
36 See Romero, supra note 32, at 358.
37 EBSVERA, Pub. L. No. 107–173, § 501, 116 Stat. 543, 560–62 (2002).
38 Retention and Reporting of Information for F, J, and M Nonimmigrants; Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), 67 Fed. Reg. 76,256, 76,256 (Dec. 11, 2002).
39 See Jan H. Brown, The Immigration Alphabet, Immigr. L. Today, May/June 2003, at 49.
40 See generally Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology Program (“US-VISIT”) Biometric Requirements, 69 Fed. Reg. 468 (Jan. 5, 2004); David B. Pakula & Lawrence P. Lataif, Judicial Review of BCIS Decisions: Will There Be Any?, 80 Interpreter Releases 677, 690 (May 12, 2003); DHS to Launch “US-VISIT” System to Replace NSEERS, 8 Bender’s Immigr. Bull. 966, 966–67 (2003).
41 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, Fact Sheet: US-VISIT Program (May 19, 2003), reprinted in 8 Bender’s Immigr. Bull. 984, 984–85 (2003).
42 See U.S. General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Committees, Homeland Security: Justice Department’s Project to Interview Aliens after September 11, 2001 8 (2003), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03459.pdf [hereinafter GAO Report]; Boiling the Frog Slowly, supra note 9, at 1240; The Aftermath of September 11: A Chronology, 79 Interpreter Releases 1359, 1360 (Nov. 9, 2002). The questions were pre-formulated and are reproduced in the GAO Report, supra, app. I at 21–27.
43 GAO Report, supra note 42, at 8–9.
44 Id. at 16–17.
45 Pakula & Lataif, supra note 40, at 693–94.
46 Pub. L. No. 107–45, 115 Stat. 258 (2001) (amending INA § 101(a)(15)(S)).
47 INA § 214(k)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(k)(1).
48 See DOJ Order Incentives: ‘Voluntary’ Interviews of Aliens to Obtain Info on Terrorists; Foreign Students, Visa Processing Under State Dept. Scrutiny, 78 Interpreter Releases 1816, 1816–17 (Dec. 3, 2001).
49 Id. at 1817.
50 See, e.g., USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. No. 107–56, § 411, 115 Stat. 272, 345–50 (2001), (amending INA § 212(a)(3)(B) for inadmissibility grounds). The deportability grounds are analogous. INA § 237(a)(4)(B), U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B).
51 See INA §§ 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(v), 212(a)(3)(B)(vi), 219; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(3)(B)(v), 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi), 1189; Boiling the Frog Slowly, supra note 9, at 1237.
52 Stephen H. Legomsky, Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy 843–46 (3d ed. 2002); Michael Scaperlanda, Are We That Far Gone?: Due Process and Secret Deportation Proceedings, 7 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 23, 25–26 (1996).
53 N. Jersey Media Group v. Ashcroft, 308 F.3d 198, 203 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting the Creppy Directive).
54 Id. at 202–03.
55 Pakula, supra note 40, at 692–93 (testimony of Kevin Rooney, Director of EOIR, before Subcomm. on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, Comm. on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives).
56 Compare Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 681, 707–710 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding Creppy directive unconstitutional), with N. Jersey Media Group, 308 F.3d at 201–02 (upholding directive). See generally Ting, supra note 16, at 1156.
57 See discussion of INA § 235(b) supra Part I.D.1.
58 See, e.g., Niels W. Frenzen, National Security and Procedural Fairness: Secret Evidence and the Immigration Laws, 76 Interpreter Releases 1677, 1682–83 (Nov. 22, 1999); David A. Martin, Graduated Application of Constitutional Protections for Aliens: The Real Meaning of Zadvydas v. Davis, 2001 Sup. Ct. Rev. 47, 127 n.202. In a post-September 11 decision, Singh v. INS, the court avoided the constitutional question by interpreting the statute to require at least in camera review of the government’s evidence. 328 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir. 2003). For excellent commentary, see Frenzen, supra; Martin, supra; Susan M. Akram, Scheherezade Meets Kafka: Two Dozen Sordid Tales of Ideological Exclusion, 14 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 51 (1999).
59 See Akram, supra note 58, at 52–53; Frenzen, supra note 58, at 1683–85.
60 EBSVERA, Pub. L. No. 107–173, § 306(a), 116 Stat. 543, 555 (2002).
61 Id. § 306(b).
62 See Victor C. Romero, Decoupling “Terrorist” from “Immigrant”: An Enhanced Role for the Federal Courts Post 9/11, 7 J. of Gender, Race & Just. 101, 102 n.3 (2003); Liam Schwartz & Michelle L. Lazerow, The Consul and the Visas Condor—Closely Scrutinizing, Immigr. L. Today, May/June 2003, at 24.
63 Schwartz & Lazerow, supra note 62, at 24–26.
64 Id. (emphasis added).
65 HSA, Pub. L. No. 107–296, § 428, 116 Stat. 2135, 2187–89.
66 6 U.S.C. § 236(b)(1) (Supp. 2004).
67 Id.
68 Id. § 236(e).
69 See EBSVERA, Pub. L. No. 107–173, §501(b), 116 Stat. 543 (2002); see also Foreign Students and Scholars in the Age of Terrorism: Hearing Before the House Comm. on Science, 108th Cong. (2003)(statement of Shirley M. Tilghman, President, Princeton University), reprinted in 8 Bender’s Immigr. Bull. 714, 714–19 (2003) (discussing the increasing difficulty of obtaining student visas).
70 Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigrant and Nationality Act, 68 Fed. Reg. 40,127, 40,127–29 (July 7, 2003) (to be codified at 22 C.F.R. § 41.102).
71 See, e.g., USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. No. 107–56, § 402–403, 115 Stat. 272; EBSVERA, Pub. L. No. 107–173, §§ 101–02, 116 Stat. 543, 555 (2002).
72 EBSVERA, Pub. L. No. 107–173, § 402, 116 Stat. 543, 555 (2002).
73 See supra Introduction.
74 This is a recurring theme in the sophisticated analysis of Frederick Schauer. See Frederick Schauer, Profiles, Probabilities and Stereotypes 1–7 (2003) (describing benefits of, but nonetheless resistance to, policies that rely on actuarial generalizations).
75 For a particularly rigorous empirical study, see generally Gross & Barnes, supra note 4. Other fine analyses include: David A. Harris, Profiles in Injustice: Why Racial Profiling Cannot Work (2002); David A. Harris, ACLU Special Report: Driving While Black: Racial Profiling on Our Nation’s Highways (June 1999), at http://archive.aclu.org/profiling/report; Jeremiah W. (“Jay”) Nixon, Remarks on Racial Profiling in Missouri, 22 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 53 (2003); Leland Ware, Prohibiting Racial Profiling: The ACLU’s Orchestration of the Missouri Legislation, 22 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 59 (2003).
76 Johnson, supra note 4, at 681–82; Victor C. Romero, Racial Profiling: “Driving While Mexican” and Affirmative Action, 6 Mich. J. Race & L. 195, 195–97 (2000).
77 See supra Section I.
78 See supra Section I.
79 See supra Sections I.B.2, I.B.5.
80 Cole, Enemy Aliens article, supra note 4, at 976–77. This article was later expanded into a book, Cole, Enemy Aliens book, supra note 4, at 183–208.
81 Cole, Enemy Aliens article, supra note 4, at 958–59; Cole, Enemy Aliens book, supra note 4, at 9–10.
82 Cole, Enemy Aliens article, supra note 4, at 976; Cole, Enemy Aliens book, supra note 4, at 55. Although his argument is constitutional, its logic is equally relevant to the present policy analysis.
83 I emphasize “if,” though few would dispute that, at a minimum, the ranks of Al Qaeda are overwhelmingly Arab and Muslim. See Nixon, supra note 75, at 56. In the words of Missouri’s Attorney General, “[i]t would be foolish not to acknowledge the fact that Al Queda specifically targeted young, Islamic men from Middle Eastern countries to train as terrorists.” Id.
84 Cole, Enemy Aliens article, supra note 4, at 976; Cole, Enemy Aliens book, supra note 4, at 55. In December of 2001, Reid tried to destroy a passenger plane by igniting explosives hidden in the lining of his shoes. See Alan Levin, Terrorists Could Bring Down U.S. Jets With Hidden Bombs; Despite New Security Steps, Explosives Evade Screening, USA Today, Sept. 29, 2004, at A1.
85 Cole, Enemy Aliens article, supra note 4, at 976–77; Cole, Enemy Aliens book, supra note 4, at 55–56.
86 Leila Nadya Sadat, Do All Arabs Really Look Alike? Prejudice and the U.S. “War” on Terror, 50 Wayne L. Rev. 1 (forthcoming 2004).
87 For an analogous balancing of the benefits and costs in the motorist context, see Gross & Barnes, supra note 4, at 744–53.
88 For just a small sampling, see, for example, Juan F. Perea, et al., Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States (Juan F. Perea ed., 1997); Edward W. Said, Orientalism (1978); Leti Volpp, “Obnoxious to their Very Nature”: Asian Americans and Constitutional Citizenship, 5 Citizenship Stud. 57 (2001); Susan Musarrat Akram, Orientalism Revisited in Asylum and Refugee Claims, 12 Int’l J. Refugee L. 7 (2000); Kevin R. Johnson, Immigration and Latino Identity, 19 Chicano-Latino L. Rev. 197 (1998); Victor C. Romero, Broadening Our World: Citizens and Immigrants of Color in America, 27 Cap. U. L. Rev. 13 (1998); Natsu Taylor Saito, Alien and Non-Alien Alike: Citizenship, “Foreignness,” and Racial Hierarchy in American Law, 76 Oreg. L. Rev. 261 (1997); Berta Esperanza Hernández-Truyol, Natives, Newcomers and Nativism: A Human Rights Model for the Twenty-First Century, 23 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1075 (1996); Michael A. Olivas, The Chronicles, My Grandfather’s Stories, and Immigration Law: The Slave Traders Chronicle as Racial History, 34 St. Louis U. L.J. 425 (1990).
89 Elsewhere, I have explored the full range of rationales offered by the Supreme Court for the principle that special judicial deference is due when noncitizens challenge the constitutionality of federal immigration legislation. See Stephen H. Legomsky, Immigration and the Judiciary: Law and Politics in Britain and America, 172–222 (1987); Stephen H. Legomsky, Immigration Law and the Principle of Plenary Congressional Power, 1984 Sup. Ct. Rev. 255. These two writings are updated in Stephen H. Legomsky, Ten More Years of Plenary Power: Immigration, Congress, and the Courts, 22 Hastings Const. L.Q. 925 (1995).
90 Martin, supra note 58, at 84–109; David A. Martin, Due Process and Membership in the National Community: Political Asylum and Beyond, 44 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 165, 208–24 (1983).
91 See supra Section I.
92 INA § 217, 8 U.S.C. § 1187.
93 North American Free Trade Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America, the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Mexican States (Jan. 1, 1994); North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 103–182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993).
94 INA § 202, 8 U.S.C. § 1152.
95 See DHS to Detain Asylum Seekers Under “Operation Liberty Shield”, supra note 8, at 5.
96 See Race Convention, supra note 1, 660 U.N.T.S. 195.
97 The Cold War politics that shaped its history are well-described in Gay J. McDougall, Toward a Meaningful International Regime: The Domestic Relevance of International Efforts to Eliminate All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 40 How. L.J. 571, 571–82 (1997).
98 See Henkin Doc. Supp., supra note 1, at 180, 192–93.
99 See Race Convention, supra note 1, arts. 6, 8–16, 22, 660 U.N.T.S. 195, 222, 224–32, 236.
100 Id. art. 8, at 224.
101 Id. art. 9.1, at 224-26.
102 Id. arts. 11–13, at 226–30.
103 Id. art. 14, at 230–32.
104 See U.S. Reservations, Understandings and Declarations, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [hereinafter U.S. Reservations], in Henkin Doc. Supp., supra note 1, at 192–93. See generally Lori Fisler Damrosch, The Role of the United States Senate Concerning “Self-Executing” and “Non-Self-Executing” Treaties, 67 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 515 (1991); Nkechi Taifa, Codification or Castration? The Applicability of the International Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Racial Discrimination to the U.S. Criminal Justice System, 40 How. L.J. 642, 651–55 (1997).
105 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, art. 19(c), 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 337 (not signed by the United States but voluntarily followed).
106 See ICCPR, supra note 2, arts. 28–45, 999 U.N.T.S. at 179–84.
107 See Gen. Comment 24, U.N. GAOR Human Rights Comm., 52nd Sess., 1382nd Mtg., at 1–8, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6(1994).
108 Id. at 7.
109 See Reservation No. 3, reprinted in Henkin Doc. Supp., supra note 1, at 192 (detailing the U.S. Senate ratification’s inclusion of an additional reservation which disavowed the article 22 provision for compulsory ICJ jurisdiction).
110 The United States is not subject to this authority because it has not made the requisite declaration.
111 Race Convention, supra note 1, art. I, 660 U.N.T.S. at 216 (emphasis added).
112 Id. art. 1.1, at 216.
113 Id.
114 While article 1.2 makes clear that nothing in the Convention may be read to prohibit all distinctions between citizens and noncitizens, such distinctions might well be prohibited in particular cases. For example, in Habassi v. Denmark, a Danish bank adopted the practice of denying loans to all non-Danish citizens, even if the applicants were lawful permanent residents of Denmark. Case No. 10/1997, Views adopted on 17 March 1999, CERD/C/54/D/10/1997, available at http://www.bayefsky.com/pdf/101_denmarkcerdvws
10.pdf. The bank sought to justify the policy as a means of ensuring repayment. Finding that for repayment purposes permanent residence would be a more logical criterion than citizenship, CERD held that the Danish authorities should have investigated the “real reasons” for the bank’s policy. Id. ¶ 9.3. That holding would have been impossible if CERD had believed that article 1.2 insulated all citizen/noncitizen distinctions from protection under the Race Convention. Nonetheless, since the national security programs examined in this Article tend to be part and parcel of the U.S. immigration laws, and since by their nature immigration laws restrict only the movements of noncitizens, the citizen/noncitizen distinction employed by these U.S. programs should not generate the same difficulties as the Danish bank’s loan policies. Rather, of chief concern here are those distinctions between nationals of some foreign states and nationals of others.

115 Race Convention, supra note 1, art. 1.3, 660 U.N.T.S. at 216 (emphasis added).
116 See Gen. Rec. XI on non-citizens, U.N. GAOR, Comm. on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 48th Sess., Supp. No. 18, at 112–13, U.N. Doc. A/48/18 (1993).
117 See supra text accompanying notes 92–94.
118 Race Convention, supra note 1, art. 1.3, 660 U.N.T.S. at 216 (emphasis added).
119 Id. art. 1.1, at 216.
120 For the reasons stated in this subsection, selective application based on country of nationality gives rise to murkier issues.
121 For a more complete description of this case, see supra note 114.
122 Habassi v. Denmark, Case No. 10/1997, Views adopted on 17 March 1999, CERD/C/54/D/10/1997, ¶ 9.3, available at http://www.bayefsky.com/pdf/101_denmark
cerdvws10.pdf.

123 Race Convention, supra note 1, art. 1.1, 660 U.N.T.S. at 216.
124 Gen. Rec. XI on non-citizens, U.N. GAOR, Comm. on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 48th Sess., Supp. No. 18, at 114, U.N. Doc. A/48/18 (1993).
125 Concluding Observations on Denmark, U.N. GAOR, Comm. on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 48th Sess., at 2, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/304/Add.2 (1996).
126 See B.M.S. v. Australia, Case No. 8/1996, Views adopted on 12 March 1999, CERD/C/54/D/8/1996, available at http://www.bayefsky.com/./pdf/103_australiacerd
dec08.pdf.

127 See Rep. of the Comm. on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, U.N. GAOR, 60th & 61st Sess., Supp. No. 18, at 106–07, U.N. Doc. A/57/18 (2002).
128 Id. at 106–07.
129 Of course, religious profiling would generate independent issues of both law and policy, but those are beyond the reach of the Race Convention.
130 Concluding Observations of the Comm. on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: France, U.N. GAOR, 49th Sess., at 32, U.N. Doc. A/49/18 (1994) [hereinafter Observations].
131 Race Convention, supra note 1, art. 1, 660 U.N.T.S. at 216.
132 E.g., id. arts. 2–7, at 216-22.
133 Id. art. 5, at 220.
134 Id.
135 Id. art. 1. at 216.
136 See supra Section I.
137 See supra Section I.G.
138 Race Convention, supra note 1, art. 5, 66- U.N.T.S. at 220.
139 Gen. Recommendation XX, U.N. GAOR, Comm. on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 51st Sess., Supp. No. 18, at 124, U.N. Doc. A/51/18 (1996); see also Gen. Recommendation XIV on article 1, U.N. GAOR, Comm. on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 42d Sess., Supp. No. 18, at 67, U.N. Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev. 1 (1994) (expressly linking the rights referenced in article 1 to the “related rights and freedoms . . . set up in article 5”).
140 Race Convention, supra note 1, art. 5, 660 U.N.T.S. at 220.
141 Observations, supra note 130, at 32.
142 Id.