Historically, the development of human society was closely intertwined with the development of state structures and institutions. The modern world is practically unthinkable without governmental organizations. In fact, the government manages the development of countries and, to a significant extent, defines their future. At the same time, it is possible to distinguish democratic nations, where the government is under the public control, and undemocratic countries, where the government controls the society. Nevertheless, the role of the government, regardless of the state, tends to be slightly oppressive since any government tends to regulate the relationships of people that inevitably affect private life of any individual. In this regard, there are no exceptions, and the interference of the government into the private life of people traditionally evokes a strong criticism and opposition to any oppressive actions on the part of the government.
It is worth mentioning the fact that in democratic countries the public can have a larger influence on the government compared to undemocratic countries, but still, the public has to accept specific rules and norms imposed by the government on people even if people have to sacrifice some benefits of their private life. In such a context, the government is viewed as an oppressive mechanism which limits human liberty and interferes in the private life of people. On the other hand, the government performs a vital role of a regulator of social relationships since the society needs a mediating power, which could soothe conflicts between people or interest groups. Hence, the role of the government turns to be dubious: on the one hand, it is an oppressive power that interferes into the private life of individuals and limits it in a way, while, on the other hand, it is a major power which maintains the existing social order. In such a way, the role of the government is important, but it needs to be controlled by the public. Otherwise, the government may outgrow into a dictatorship power which oppresses its citizens and does not serve the interests of the society.
It proves beyond a doubt that in the contemporary world the government plays a determinant role in the life of society. At the same time, even in the most democratic nations, the government tends to oppressive actions which limit individual’s liberty and interfere with the individual’s private life. In this respect, it is possible to discuss the current situation in the US and consistent changes that took place in the country which affected consistently not only the private lives of ordinary Americans but even more, they influenced the life of immigrants and foreigners in the US. What is meant here are legislative changes, including the Patriot Act of 2001. In fact, the introduction of the Patriot Act in 2001 caused numerous discussions in the US society, even though both houses of Congress supported the act. At the same time, the act was a response to the dramatic changes that occurred in the US in 2001. To put it more precisely, the introduction of this law was a part of the response of the US on terror attacks and its primary target was to prevent the repetition of other terror attacks. The supporters of the act estimated that this act could almost guarantee the national security of the US and all Americans.
On the other hand, the opponents of this legislative act argued that this act was a significant threat to the democracy in the US and to civil rights of Americans as well as other people that were either living or simply visiting or just having business in the US. In such a situation, it is important to analyze the background and the reasons for the introduction of the Patriot Act and assess its impact on average Americans, the situation in domestic affairs at large, the position of foreigners and immigrants in the US in order to understand what the actual consequences of the introduction of the act are or could be in the future.
Apparently, the introduction of the Patriot Act was determined by objective factors that stimulated the American Government to enhance the national security policy. In this respect, it should be said that the Patriot Act was introduced shortly after the terror attacks on September 11, 2001. It was probably the largest tragedy in the modern history of the US when thousands of innocent people had died in the result of the terror attacks, while the national security system and law enforcement agencies proved their inefficiency in the prevention of the terror attacks at such a large scale.
At the same time, the inability of security agencies and law enforcement agencies of the US to protect American citizens from the attacks of terrorist resulted, or at any rate, it was estimated so, from the gaps in the national legislation concerning the problem of security. In such a way, a bit paradoxically though, the susceptibility of the US to the terror attacks on September 11, was viewed as the consequence of the liberties and civil rights of people that were living or simply were at the moment of the attacks in the territory of the US.
As a result, the suggestions to improve the existing legislating and enlarge the opportunities of law enforcement agencies in their struggle with terrorists were declared on the top level one of the most eager supporters of the introduction of the Patriot Act was the President of the US, George W. Bush.
Basically, the supporters argued that law enforcement agencies should have additional rights to investigate and conduct preventive measures in order to minimize the risk of new terror attacks, while the current level of freedom in the US exposed the nation to the great threat making law enforcement agencies unable to prevent terror attacks and protect Americans from terrorists.
This is actually why the Patriot Act was supported by the Congress, and the law was introduced on October 26, 2001, a month and a half after the terror attacks on September 11. Nevertheless, in spite of the arguments of the supporters of the Patriot Act, the introduction of this law caused a strong opposition in American society, especially from the part of organizations targeting at the protection of civil rights. Many specialists argue that the Act threatens to the private security violating basic human rights and liberties and giving law enforcement agencies practically unlimited authority in the field of private security. It should be pointed out that the act limited the liberties and constitutional rights of Americans consistently and this was the major challenge to the opponents of the act. They argued that the introduction of this act, even though it may decrease the external threat from the part of terrorists, provokes another, an even more severe threat to the national security and the fundamental principles of the traditional American lifestyle. To put it more precisely, the opponents of the act underlined that it had actually undermined the basic principles of democracy and it also limited the rights and liberties of Americans.
In this respect, it should be said that t Patriot Act provided law enforcement agencies with additional rights that threatened to the private security of Americans. For instance, this act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone and e-mail communications, as well as medical, financial, and other records. In such a way, Americans turned to be susceptible to the free intrusion of law enforcement agencies in their private life, searching their private information even without receiving any sanctions on the part of a court. Obviously, these issues affected constitutional rights and liberties of Americans making them exposed to the violation of their constitutional rights by law enforcement agencies who could use the Patriot Act to justify their intrusion in the private life of practically any American.
Naturally, such a situation was unacceptable, and several legal challenges have been already brought against the act, and the Federal Courts have ruled that a number of provisions of the act are unconstitutional that proves that the Patriot Act threatens to the maintenance of democracy in the US.
However, the position of foreigners and immigrants in the US after the introduction of the Patriot Act became even worse than the position of an average American. To put it more precisely, the Patriot Act limited the possibilities consistently for foreigners and immigrants to freely enter the country. The measures of control and identification of foreigners and immigrants were enforced substantially. In fact, the Patriot Act has been severely criticized for its indefinite authorization detentions of immigrants. The opponents of the Act argued that it have the Attorney General unprecedented, new power to determine the fate of immigrants Worse, if a foreigner does not have a country that will accept him, he can be detained indefinitely without trial.
The law enhanced the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detention and deporting immigrants suspected in terrorism-related acts.
In such a way, the personal freedom of immigrants and foreigner, one of the basic human rights, was under a great threat and, therefore, they could become victims of law enforcement agencies, their mistakes or misuse of their power. In fact, the Act made foreigners and immigrants practically unprotected in the face of almost almighty law enforcement agencies.
Moreover, even the property of foreigners in the US was under threat. For instance, the Patriot Act expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities.
Consequently, the security of the financial resources and operations of Americans and, especially foreigners, were under threat. Thus, it is possible to conclude that, in spite of objective factors that forced the US Government to enhance national security legislation, the Patriot Act should be viewed as a very contradictive and arguably law because in terms of the struggle against terrorism and improving law enforcement agencies and opportunities to prevent to prevent terror attacks, this law gives the latter almost unlimited provisions and, at the same time, it has limited basic liberties and rights of all Americans and foreigners and immigrants in the US. It is why the implementation of this Act should be more careful and more thoroughly prepared to meet the law to the norms of the US Constitution, which cannot be changed whatever external threats to the US are.
Nevertheless, whatever the reasons of the introduction of such legislative changes as the Patriot Act of 2001 were, they affected the private life of Americans and foreigners in the USA consistently. In fact, today, people living in the US are exposed to the interference of law enforcement agencies into their private life that apparently has both positive and negative effects. On the one hand, the interference of the government into the private life of people enforces national security and safety of all people living in the US, but, on the other hand, it limits individual’s liberties and even some civil rights.
At the same time, the situation in undemocratic countries is consistently worse compared to democratic ones, and the oppressive nature of the government outweighs its role of the regulator of social relations and the major power maintaining the existing social order. Instead, an authoritarian government establishes a new social order in which the government controls all spheres of the life of society. In this respect, it is possible to refer to Afghanistan and Iran, where the government was and, in the case of Iran, remains in the hands of the religious elite of the country. In fact, it is possible to find numerous examples of the extent to which the government oppresses its citizens in works of authors which experienced the life under an authoritarian regime. For instance, The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini and Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi perfectly illustrate the negative impact of the government on the life of people. For instance, the main character of The Kite Runner is forced to abandon his motherland because of the interference of the government in the private life of people and threat to the life of citizens, while Persepolis depicts the childhood of the author in Iran after the Islamic Revolution which changed the life of people dramatically for Islamic rules regulated all spheres of human life, including their private life.
Thus, it is possible to conclude that the role of the government may be dubious since it can perform the functions of a regulator of social relations, which maintain stable social order and supports justice in the society. At the same time, even the most democratic governments tend to the interference into the private life of people, while in undemocratic, authoritarian countries, the government can control the private life of people and perform oppressive functions. In such a situation, it is obvious that the public counteraction to the government is essential. Otherwise, the interference of the government into the private life of people will transform even the most democratic government into a totalitarian institution, while the public control and the public opposition to actions of the government limiting individual’s rights and liberties and interfering into private life of individuals can force the government to change its policy and respect basic civil rights and liberties.