Immigrant airport screeners find themselves on the brink of yet another major upheaval in their lives. On Nov. 19, airports around the country announced whether they will retain the federal employees of the Transportation Security Administration or opt out and privately contract out the screener positions.
This decision is the latest in a string of disruptions to the job security of immigrant screeners since the Sept. 11 attacks. First, in 2002, the TSA federalized the passenger- and baggage-screener jobs at all but five of the 429 airports across the country. Tens of thousands of incumbent screeners were forced to re-apply for their own jobs.
Second, thousands of screeners were barred from even re-applying because of a newly enacted citizenship requirement for the position. The intensification of anti-immigrant sentiment post-Sept. 11 is made clear by laws such as the Aviation & Transportation Security Act, which imposed this requirement of open and active discrimination against non-citizens. Since its implementation, thousands of immigrants lost their jobs and many are looking for employment to this day. Others are still recovering from the turmoil caused by federalization. They struggle to make ends meet with jobs that offer meager pay and fewer benefits, if any at all.
Now, the future of the screeners’ jobs may once more be up for grabs. Re-privatization could compromise their job stability and their ability to fight for just and fair wages and working conditions.
This newest development comes just months after the screeners suffered a heavy blow in a related legal battle. Several immigrant screeners had sued the federal government in Gebin v. Mineta, filed in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The plaintiffs alleged the citizenship requirement was unconstitutional and violated their civil rights.
At the time the suit was launched, the American Civil Liberties Union estimated that 25 percent of the 28,000 airport screeners nationwide (7,000 people) were legal permanent residents (LPRs) who lost their jobs as a result of the discriminatory requirements. In Los Angeles, roughly 40 percent of all the screeners were LPRs. In the San Francisco Bay Area, nearly 80 percent of them were LPRs, the majority of whom were Filipino Americans.
The case was dismissed earlier this fall; the plaintiffs were left with no recourse. Moreover, the decision serves as a green light for the federal government to continue implementing policies that are blatantly discriminatory and anti-immigrant.
In a 2002 interview with The New York Times, plaintiff Jeimy Gebin stated, “It really upsets me to know that it’s OK for me to serve this country and be willing to die for this country. Yet I’m not able to work for the government as an airport screener.”
This legal loss is surprising, but it seems to fit the rash of anti-immigrant discrimination that is occurring at nearly all levels of government.
For example, the Special Registration Program requiring immigrants from select Arab and Muslim countries to report to the federal government for interrogation has led to numerous disappearances, indefinite detention or deportation. This trend also includes the selective enforcement of a deportation program called the Absconder Apprehension Initiative against individuals who were born in the Philippines or other countries with purported links to terrorism.
Taking a cue from leadership in the national government, various states across the country have made their anti-immigrant efforts even more pronounced. Californians saw Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger deny driver’s licenses to immigrants because of their perceived threat to national security.
Likewise, Arizona just enacted Proposition 200, which requires proof of citizenship for access to public services. Because this new law is not well-defined, the citizenship requirement may extend even to the provision of medical immunizations and water utilities. Inspired by these successes, conservatives are operating under a new mandate to further erode the rights of immigrants through similar initiatives in states all across the nation.
The institutionalization of racist, anti-immigrant sentiment in both federal and state law is disturbing — but not unprecedented. Elected officials must be made to understand that national security is not a universal trump card for employment and civil rights. Until this sea change in public consciousness occurs, advocates are only left to wonder, “How much more abuse will be forced on immigrants?”
This op-ed was a collaborative effort among the Pilipino Bayanihan Resource Center (Daly City), Filipino Community Support (San Jose) and Filipinos for Affirmative Action (Oakland). The writer, Christopher Punongbayan, is the advocacy director at FAA.
