Immigration as a Potential Threat to the USA National Security, Research Paper Example

Introduction

The security concept has been subjected over time to a series of definitions that culminate in both its complexity and its subject matter. Security can usually be classified as military security, political security, economical safety, environmental security, and societal security (Stephenson, 2019). Immigration has a cross-cutting impact on political security, financial security, and social security. Migration was among the most discussed and most controversial parts of the new security plan, which arose at the end of the Cold War (Mantovani, 2016, p.1). Migration is therefore increasingly seen in the modern world as a security issue. Nonetheless, migration has gained from globalization, which has significantly improved human movements worldwide through modern modes of transport and the availability of information through the Internet, making it easier for people to access movement information (Coats, 2019, p.3).

On the other hand, national security comprises numerous components, some of which are the physical protection of citizens and others which are economic security. Because of these two factors, an influx of immigrants raises security concerns in the countries receiving them. This is particularly true concerning the growing frequency of terrorist attacks, the adverse effects of which considerably outweigh the beneficial economic contribution of immigrants to the recipient country through qualified work and education. Regarding 9/11 attack, which marked a watershed moment in relations between immigrants and the receiving states, consider the following: Because all suicide bombers were foreign-born, there was now a clear connection between immigration and insecurity (Coats, 2019, p.3). Since then, governments have increased their investment to maintain strict immigration controls.

Background of the Study

Many governments have included immigration on their lists of policy priorities. The situation is most acute in Europe and the USA, where immigration plays a role in shaping meaningful political choices that affect the whole world (Pope,2020, p.4). Reports in the United States indicate that the Republican presidential contender intends to build a wall on the U.S./Mexican border to illegally stop Mexican immigrants from crossing the border into the United States (Stephenson, 2019). Research shows that the expansion of wars leads to the influx of migrants and the unregulated movement of individuals from one country to another, facilitating illegal arms trafficking, thereby increasing insecurity and vulnerability both inside and across the communities States (Stephenson, 2019.

Statement of the Problem

Historically, the willingness of a state to protect itself militarily has been the limit of the scope of security concerns. The research findings show that the contemporary technique makes it possible to determine individual analyzes of the state sectors and the levels of security allocated to each State sector (Mantovani, 2016, p.1). The method reinforces the essence of human safety, which was emphasized more widely after the Cold War conclusion. Furthermore, people become immigrants because they are fleeing worsening conditions or persecution in their home countries. In such a situation, even if they reside in another country, adapting and changing their practices and customs can be difficult for them first. Immigrants are perceived to be different in such situations. In times of deteriorating economic conditions, they can be seen as draining resources that would otherwise benefit local communities. Migration is defined as the movement of people from one place to another outside of their home country. Such a colony is seen as a threat to the safety of modern societies.

Lastly, Migrants’ concerns are rooted in the reality that the world is currently facing an unprecedented wave of violent extremism manifested in the form of terrorist strikes on unsuspecting innocent civilians. The majority of the time, immigrants are singled out for criticism (OECD, 2021, p.7. The aim of this study is to answer the question of whether immigrants provide a security hazard. A positive answer to this question will help us understand if migration and violence are linked or not. However, it will also help to shape judgments on immigration policy.

Additionally, the settlement of populations in host communities and states can be accepted or opposed by the communities and states hosting the people (Pope, 2020, p.1). The U.S., as a host country, has been recorded on several occasions as both opposed to and supportive of the incorporation of foreign societies from all over the world throughout history. Whether the country accepts new communities infringes on the security of its culture is of particular interest given its part as a host nation. And if so, what else is the U.S. doing to encourage social integration among individuals who arrived due to migration? Migration’s role in maintaining national security is investigated in this study, which looks into investigating how migration contributes to this concern.

The Paradigm of Migration

The State has been preserved for managing migrant flows and combatting illicit migration. As a result, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-interference in other states were the rule that guided interactions between States. Over time, nationalism and a strong sense of nationality emerge within the borders.

As a result, countries regard people who move from one country to another without first obtaining permission from the government to be intruders who should be barred from entering. People are forced to migrate because of economic difficulty, population pressure, or war-related instability. The majority of these programs have failed since the migration of people has increased year after year. As a result of these circumstances, people are more likely to leave their home countries. The forces of globalization, in turn, serve as catalysts for people to relocate around the world.

A significant element of the burden of economic hardship is the disparity in levels of development and population dynamics between countries in the globalized world. In particular, the disparity between the wealthiest and most impoverished regions of the world is 19 to 1. Consequently, people have to leave their homes and seek employment in other countries because of poverty. The migrant movement is primarily from developing countries to developed ones.

Complexities of Migration Inflows into the United States

The security of socio-cultural values of a country globally constitutes a component of its overall national security. Therefore, the country should maintain its intrinsic character when encountering changes in its environment that threaten its national identity, if necessary. The traditions of immigrants who arrive in a new country are brought into the host country. These traditions impact the indigenous people’s culture and traditions, if not pose a direct threat to these cultures and traditions. Some of these risks can be associated with the state’s cultural, linguistic, religious, or national characteristics (Pope, 2020, p.1). If people look more deeply, they would find that the national principles affect all the aspects described above.

Exposure to a particular national culture teaches values and views. The friction resulting from the mixing of cultures that emerges from immigration is determined by the country’s ability to tolerate multiculturalism or policy. Those who embrace it risk losing their cultural identity, notably when the immigrant population grows more than the indigenous population.

Immigrants’ integration into society in their host country, or their failure to integrate, can also contribute to insecurity. The United States is a case in point where a failure to integrate results in segregation, which can lead to prejudice and racism as a result. The refusal to merge is rationalized by the notion that each group wants to preserve its traditions, which is not valid.

The overwhelming majority, especially in Europe and America, are citizens of nations other than those in which the assaults are perpetrated. While some believe that it has been exploited for condemning immigration as a whole, others say that it was accomplished without considering the many beneficial things. There is evidence that terrorists will continue to attack despite the many protections the governments have put into preventing them from doing so (Pope, 2020, p1. Since attackers are fully aware of security measures such as border controls, they can avoid them. In fact, despite sophisticated security measures, only a small number of assailants have been apprehended before launching an attack.

According to Pope (2020, p.1), the 9/11 terrorist attack threw into sharp relief flaws in the United States’ visa and immigration screening practices, which exposed its citizens to danger. Still, it is erroneous to classify all immigration as a danger to the security of the nation. Although the relationship amid national security and immigration policies is valid, the country benefits from immigration and international tourists. In addition, the federal government’s reorganization to create the United States. The Homeland Security Department (DHS) successfully expanded national safety safeguards in the fields of migration, tourism, and commerce policy and practices in 2002. The question arises whether the system of immigration, which has changed radically since 9/11, can overcome the shortcomings shown by these attacks and manage the constantly evolving dangers to security, including significant national and global safety risks such as the COVID 19 pandemic (Pope, 2020, p.1).

The primary motivation for establishing the DHS was fastening the relationship between the government and the immigration task forces, which the national commission on extremist occurrences against the U.S. recognized (Pope, 2020, p.1). The DHS was designed to provide a more precise objective in each agency, more focused effort, improved coordination between them, and a unified policy formulation by restructuring the agencies responsible for border management and immigration and placing them under one roof.

Further, the agencies and the government have successfully addressed numerous complex security threats through new technology, increasing the sharing of information among agencies and cooperation with foreign governments, the use of risk management techniques, and increasingly removing their operations from the US border. Substantial resource investments accompanied these developments. Despite enormous expenditure, numerous companies have grown their specific mandates to different degrees: legacy systems and missions overlapping with governmental institutions elsewhere. For example, some of the clarity between ICE and the FBI regarding the aims for the post-11 restructuring was undermined (Pope, 2020, p.2). Additional mandates have often concentrated on new or different objectives.

Nevertheless, the restructuring did little to establish mechanisms to determine government-wide policies or ensure cooperation across the appropriate agencies. Policies and coordination on immigration and frontier concerns have been inconsistent and scattered – more generally within DHS and across the U.S. government. Consequently, it was impossible to anticipate and promptly respond to rapidly changing ground conditions and political discussions with a coherent strategy. This is particularly clear on the Southwest frontier, where a system of enforcement is designed for fundamentally different circumstances (Pope, 2020, p.2). The unlawful immigration of Mexico’s previously dominant adults has failed to adjust to the shifting patterns of numerous asylum applicants, especially Central American families and unaccompanied youngsters.

The concentration on constructing a wall on the southwestern border and restricting immigration by President Trump’s regime did nothing to remedy the existing security weaknesses in the U.S. immigration system, despite the national security basis for many of his administrative measures. And while a security lens frames immigration before the administration of Trump, this standard practice now distorts the picture of who and what is a threat. Regarding the national security mandate of numerous immigration agencies, other tasks, especially migration management at the U.S.-Mexico border, are often muddled and diluted. The fundamental DHS national security tasks, including disaster management, cybersecurity, weapons of mass destruction protection, and general immigration enforcing policies and plans for low-risk unregistered migrants and asylum seekers, were rejected by resources and their political will (Pope, 2020, p.2).

The lack of cooperation in the context of the Directive on immigration policy following the COVID-19 outbreak, in which DHS plays an essential role, has been a potent reminder of the significance of broad preparation and planning. Travel bans and limitations were hurriedly agreed upon leading to dangerously long routes and congestion of some countries. For instance, Aero Porto nations were spared from prohibitions and added just days later (Pope, 2020, p.2). Foreign travelers were confined in congested waiting areas for hours during rapid and overwhelming screening, leaving them in danger for most of the trip and aggravating the hazard.

As security threats constantly vary, national security requirements must be recalibrated with more significant economic and national objectives. A majority of the elements that guarantees nation’s safety, such as increased inter-agency coordination, border removal, high-risk migrant separation, and freight flow, make the United States competitive in today’s globalized world (Pope, 2020, p.2). National security and competitiveness do not necessitate trade-offs but are mutually advantageous.

More has to be done on how federal immigration agencies fulfill their national security missions and learn from past mistakes. The risk at this moment is that DHS help and its aim would be undermined by using counterproductive tactics such as the use of restricted resources to target particularly vulnerable migrants (Pope, 2020, p.2). The challenge ahead is to restore confidence in the department at home and in overseas partners and re-calibrate resource allocation.

The connection between National Security and Immigration

The evolution of the danger is a significant challenge. For much of the 20th century, the genuine concern for U.S. national security was the influence and aim of the other nations, whether it was Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union, or other unfriendly countries. Immigration and border policies were a reflection of the objectives of the time and were therefore frequently related to American foreign policy. For example, refugees were regularly permitted from Vietnam, the Soviet Union or Cuba, because their relocation gave the United States geopolitical features in its strategy for the Cold War (Mantovani, 2016, p2). More broadly, the immigration strategy concentrated on excluding types of those considered unwanted. Consequently, the amount of tailored traveling screening was relatively low.

It was only in the 90s that terrorists — which operated in the vacuum of some countries after the Cold War— came out as a threat to American national security (Mantovani, 2016, p2). The 1993 attack of the World Trade Center caught the attention of US politicians (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2021). It emphasized the current immigration problem: adapting the system to fight threats from state actors to manage a much more diffused and asymmetrical threat. As the threat posed by these non-State actors grew, so did ‘home safety,’ which became the foundation of the assaults of 9/11. In its earlier incarnations of “national security” and international policy, the idea was qualitatively different. It signaled a change in focus towards what was happening directly in or in the country.

After 9/11, the National Security Council, a model of the National Security Council, was founded by Congress and the Executive Branch but included the National Security Secretary and other national security actors (Pope, 2020, p.3). The George W. Bush White House created a staff for the new Council and national security adviser who ranked the same as the national security adviser (Pope, 2020, p.3). The two teams – national and national security – had different tasks. Foreign policy, diplomacy, and defense remain a primary concern of the National Security Employees. Home security staff respond to natural catastrophes, dangers associated with migration and terrorism, impacting U.S. borders and transport.

Nature of Threats

The threat has once again developed today: al-Qaeda, intended to destroy essential infrastructure in the USA, is no longer the principal terrorist threat. Terrorist organizations like ISIS have been significantly weakened. Most terrorist risks come from small groups of radicalized individuals, commonly referred to as ‘lone wolves,’ many of whom were born in the United States or Europe and are not obvious exclusion targets unless included in the model of terrorist threats.

Similarly, globalization allowed people and things to move across borders more and more rapidly, overcoming previous security-oriented immigration rules. Although counteracting state opponents has remained a goal for the national security, today’s spying is about the stealing of approved confidences and more and more corporate secrets, with state players utilizing advanced means to bypass America’s defenses. For instance, China’s efforts to access sensitive material in U.S. institutions and research programs are increasingly being reported and worried about (Pope, 2020, p.6). Additionally, large-scale transnational organizations trafficking narcotics, arms, persons, and profit from the same globalization dynamics as other establishments, aiding them to expand, take advantage of technical developments, and skillfully bridge border defense gaps. Cyber assault dangers have risen tremendously in recent decades, and ever-growing technology has been utilized to facilitate attacks and exploit digital defensive vulnerabilities.

Finally, despite long-standing concerns about keeping people who could spread infectious disease (the requirements in the earliest U.S. immigration policy on record-screening for contagious diseases), epidemics such as the COVID-19 epidemic clearly show how easily borders could be breached pose a significant disease threat. In coronavirus, the infection continues globally — including in the U.S. — despite increasingly restrictive steps to stop China, Europe, and other afflicted areas from traveling. As U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan acknowledged more than 20 years ago, today’s dangers to national safety are “issues with no passports” crossing boundaries and not readily solved by a single nation (Pope, 2020, p.6).

The desire for Changing Responses

No doubt, it takes thinking beyond homeland/domestic safety to define national security. Other players’ or sources of threats – international crime, cybercriminals, chemical and biological weapons, or communicable diseases, for instance – have become increasingly powerful and widespread in a world that has more and more poisonous boundaries, unbound by traditional geographical or legal limits (Coats, 2019, p.5). The secure country depends on what happens in this more globalized globe. This also happens if wars, natural calamities, and deprived governance drive people away from home and more rich countries. Also, identifying harmful people is significantly boosted by exchanging information between and between partner countries. Diplomacy and teamwork are required for such initiatives. National security cannot be restricted by the country’s physical borders alone, therefore, but must cover measures both at home and by and with international partners.

How to Curb Immigration as an Effort to Boosting National Security

Since arguments about constructing a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico led to a partial shutdown in 2019, opinions emerge regarding the solution to the immigration dilemma. Firstly, it is crucial to recognize that the situation mentioned above is caused by illegal migration. The only way to limit irregular migration successfully, therefore, is by giving individuals some possibility of regular migration and giving them the option to move through established legal channels according to the law. The U.S. can establish extra job visas for people in the labor market where there is currently a shortage, e.g., agricultural or the elderly care sectors. This suggests that more people enter by regular migration than by irregular migration. The difficulty of supporting organized crime is avoided by regular migration. Regular migration provides more openness. It enables adequate safety assessments; this is a win-win situation.

On the other hand, as carriers of contagious diseases, refugees and vulnerable migrants are typically stereotyped, and both public health and politicians’ rhetoric can raise worries. It is true that refugees and vulnerable migrants are more prone than others to get illnesses and suffer from worse results since they tend to come from health-limited locations, live in overcrowded conditions while traveling, lack proper nutrition, and encounter medical disorders. However, research showed no greater risk of transmission of infectious diseases in these groups.

The government of the United States can help minimize the fear of migrants and enhance public health by re-thinking the way they provide health services and sensitizing host communities. For example, the results of separate infectious disease screening and health services from applications for migrants and refugees. Furthermore, tying refugee status approval (and the possibility of deportation) to monitor infectious diseases may discourage migrants from having the necessary testing and treatment. Professionals in health care should be permitted to function independently of immigration authorities.

The government can also provide migrants and refugees with health services in a culturally sensitive approach. Working with NGOs and governments, inter-governmental organizations should implement awareness-raising activities for frontline health professionals and community workers. Holistic health screening can lessen the potential of stigmatization rather than infectious disease screening alone. To overcome infectious disease stigma calls for innovative education and communication activities at all levels. School administrators play a particularly crucial role in curbing the fears of migrants and refugee children infecting children in the host population. The same applies to local media.

Moreover, the U.S. government should recognize migrant’s vulnerability. When a caravan of migrants set out to seek asylum in Central America last fall, President Donald Trump stated the terrorists in the Middle East possibly were hidden within the ranks of the gathering. He later recognized that any facts did not support his assertion; however, he has branded the group as a threat. However, the actual reason migrants travel in groups is because they are vulnerable.

The Central Americans in the caravanning are escaping from tremendous violence, lack of economic opportunities, and mounting environmental difficulties, even drought and flooding, every year, like hundreds of thousands of people who escape the region. Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico have some of the highest killing rates in the world. Accordingly, 68% of migrants and refugees questioned in Mexico, which offers health care in crisis zones, had suffered violence (Stephenson, 2019). Almost one-third of women have been mistreated sexually (Stephenson, 2019). Whether they go through Central America, the Sahara Desert, or Afghanistan’s mountains, migrants are often exterminated by criminals, militias, and unscrupulous immigration authorities who know that immigrants may make accessible destinations. Large groups enhance migrants’ chances of being safe and create a sense of camaraderie and solidarity on the journey.

There have been several big geopolitical shocks and conflicts in recent years, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Latin America (OECD, 2021, p.7). The kind and extent of forced displacements caused by these conflicts often rely on the afflicted community’s sociodemographic nature and geographical environment. In the case of long-standing disputes, if the prerequisites for sustainable livelihood are not satisfied in the first region or nation of asylum, secondary migration can take place, and intercontinental movement can be created. Nobody can forecast the spread of geopolitical tensions and wars, but such events are likely to occur shortly due to several possible centers of instability. This requires increased investment in fostering peace and preventing crises.

The rich experience of the world in managing migration can still be a beneficial resource for better policymaking. There is a more helpful question that people must ask: how might diverse policy decisions produce beneficial economic impacts due to immigration? Inherently, immigration is not “good” or “bad.” Its consequences depend on the circumstances and policy choices. This is the key to understanding the conflicting results of research about “the” effects of immigration. These effects rely, essentially, on who comes from, the conditions of their departure and their arrival, the local communities they reach, the legal obstacles and obligations that they encounter, the way that the mobility of indigenous peoples is managed, and many other decisions.

The current political context around migration creates considerable obstacles. The bulk of new policies are designed to stop and not shape migration. The conversation about what is working and what must not be robust with policymakers and citizens regarding the possible benefits of tackling migration in practical, realistic methods and the potential cost and adaptations for specific groups. This involves acknowledging that migrants and refugees will continue moving, perhaps in more significant numbers. Whether a person is moving regularly or irregularly in himself has an effective policy and practical consequences.

Conclusion

Work needs to be done to make immigration and border controls more effective in fighting threats to national security. In the face of various known and emerging threats, including pandemics and cybersecurity violations, the lack of action would not enhance America’s homeland and national safety capacity, from defining task areas to sharing information and effectively integrating priorities into electronic systems. Lastly, in its nearly 20 years after 9/11, the U.S. government has made significant progress in closing gaps in defense of the immigration processes and national security. Continued strides in exaggerating migration-management constraints in the face of genuine security concerns risks compromising U.S. homeland security and making the U.S. less competent to face the real national security issues of the 21st century.

Summary

The migration crisis is a daily global news topic. Thousands of families from many countries flee wars and persecutions to the various corners of the world to pursue a better life. The issue of immigration should be highlighted in the context of economic capital, which results in people’s mobility and their willingness to relocate from their countries of origin.

In the nations of origin, there is always a humanitarian, social, and economic catastrophe. Borders and limits on immigration are the way to grasp the situation in the destination countries. To understand migration in the 21st century, people must realize that emigration is going from the South to the North and the displacement of the margins of society to the periphery.

However, most destinations do not have official policies to welcome these people and to integrate them. The U.S. was a favorite place for many immigrants globally. Unfortunately, the country does not have proper mechanisms to guide migration. This can be attributed to several factors, including the U.S. government’s lack of political goodwill. The immigration department reports that a lack of migration policies makes the immigrant dependent on a network of previously established immigrants and comments on gains and limits the legal immigration process into the country. The issue of immigration is not a single state but a global issue. In this regard, a worldwide consensus and laws governing immigration are necessary today. The United States is keen to observe its policies and overlook other aspects that pose a significant threat to national security.

References

 Coats, D., 2019. Worldwide threat assessment of the U.S. intelligence community. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, [online] Available at: <https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/2019-ATA-SFR—SSCI.pdf> [Accessed 22 July 2021].

Mantovani, R., 2016. The US-Cuba relations in the early sixties, the nineties, and the recent reconciliation process. Ph.D. Linköping University.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2021. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. [online] Govinfo.library.unt.edu. Available at: <https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch3.htm> [Accessed 21 July 2021].

OECD, 2021. Making Migration and Integration Policies Future Ready. Strategic Foresight, [online] Available at: <https://www.oecd.org/migration/mig/migration-strategic-foresight.pdf> [Accessed 22 July 2021].

Pope, A., 2020. Immigration and U.S. National Security. Migration Policy Institute, [online] Available at: <https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/Immigration-NatlSecurity_Final.pdf> [Accessed 21 July 2021].

Stephenson, H., 2019. Three Ways to Help Solve the Immigration Crisis. [online] Tufts Now. Available at: <https://now.tufts.edu/articles/three-ways-help-solve-immigration-crisis> [Accessed 22 July 2021].