Immigration reform must start with the implementation of an appropriate immigration policy that caters to international and national security as well. In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) oversees federal immigration agencies (Bergmann 37). Contemporary immigration has serious security connotations to first-world countries and therefore be addressed from a broad perspective. However, an appropriate immigration policy presents long-standing solutions for countries with an influx of unwanted immigrants. In many countries, populist rhetoric espoused by politicians is one of the key hindrances to coherent migration policy. Moreover, events of international import have led muddied the immigration arena by turning public opinion against the influx of immigrants by the citizenry in most first-world countries. This essay maps over the current global immigration trends and the policies taken by various countries in response to the present-day migration dynamics that significantly impact security.
Current Status of Immigration Globally
Immigration trends in the 21st century around the world display an interesting pattern.
People from the ‘global south’ also termed as the ‘developing world’ are seeking access to first-world countries for a variety of reasons. Europe, formerly referred to as a fortress, has seen some of the largest influxes of immigration from Africa as well as the Middle East (Luedtke 130). Idemudia and Boehnke point out that the peak of the immigration crisis in Europe circa 2015 saw more than a million immigrants from Africa attempt to enter Southern Europe through illegal sea crossings (34). A similar pattern has been observed in the USA whereby most of the immigrants hail from the gang-stricken Northern provinces of Mexico or economically ravaged South American countries such as Venezuela (Abramitzky 585). Notably, in the two preceding centuries, the exodus has been from the first world to the third world especially when Europe was industrializing. Today, inhabitants of the third world attempt to flee into first-world countries for primarily two reasons; economic opportunity and social security. These two factors are central to immigration reform as they address the needs of immigrants at the source.
International Security and Immigration
International security has an interesting nexus with immigration patterns and policy. Firstly, failures of national and international security policies generate the right circumstances for statelessness. Many illegal immigrants especially those entering Europe, the USA, and Australia are fleeing war and conditions of extreme social and personal insecurity. Veebel points out that most immigrants into the Eurozone today originate from conflict-torn regions such as Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Ukraine (44). Markedly, the wars in these four countries are in one way or another other instigated by Russia which brings to the fore the need for stronger international resolution in the face of aggressor nations. On the other hand, North America faces increasing immigration pressure from Central America. Bergmann interestingly points out that people fleeing violent and murderous cartels in nations such as El Salvador are facilitated northwards into the USA by regional cartels engaging in human smuggling (37). Bergmann sheds much-needed light on the fact that regional security crises in the third world initiate mass emigration and create the ideal conditions for the idealization of immigration (37). International immigration reforms cannot be implemented unless the corresponding international security policy is straightened.
On the other hand, immigrants are often viewed as the source of insecurity in many parts of the world. This is especially the case where the immigrants are not screened or documented before admission into the country. Natter et al. state that since the September 9, 2001 attacks by alleged Saudi immigrants into the USA, public discourse has invariably linked immigration to insecurity (4). While these claims are over-amplified by conservative media, several technicalities must be understood. Firstly, undocumented immigrants are technically aliens in the host country. As such, there is a dire risk of these persons carrying out crimes and not appearing on the grid for legal recourse. Secondly, illegal immigrants in many cases may not have the necessary socio-economic aptitudes to earn a living in their host country (Haner et al. 4). Such persons may easily resort to crime or acts such as prostitution that adversely impact a community’s moral constitution. Thirdly, some illegal immigrants may be fleeing their crimes in their host countries (Bergmann, 36). This is especially the case for immigrants from countries whose social and legal systems have collapsed entirely owing to years of war.
Muslim Immigrants as a Threat to National Security
The treatment of Muslim asylum seekers remains a sticking point for international immigration and security policy. Wojczewski notes that a ban on immigrants from certain Muslim countries was one of the draconian measures introduced by Donald Trump in his immigration policy (26). Similarly, China has sought to exile, annihilate and imprison its population of Uyghur Muslims after labeling them a threat to national security. Some of the Uyghur Muslims who have extricated themselves from the iron grasp of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have found refuge in countries such as Canada and Turkey (Ahmed, 31). There is however a shortage of countries willing to take up Islamic immigrants on the global stage. In Europe as well, many countries have responded adversely to the entry of Muslim immigrants (Gusciute 159). European citizens point out that Muslim immigrants struggle to assimilate into liberal societies (Haner et al. 1). Another major accusation leveled at Muslim immigrants is that they are likely to instigate a terror attack (Haner et al. 2). This inevitably leads to the September 9, 2001 attack on US soil as one of the important elements of international immigration and security policy.
September, 9 2001 Terrorist Attack in the Context of Immigration Policy
Immigration reform was on positive stead before the widely publicized terror attack on the Twin Towers and the US Pentagon by alleged Muslim infidels. According to Luedtke. European was gearing toward a common immigration policy across the Eurozone for the new millennium (131). In this regard, the European Union (EU) was readying a comprehensive immigration policy that would set out the screening, admission, and integration of lawful immigrants into member country state lands. This proposal, termed the Tampere program, resolved against denying “freedom to those whose circumstances lead them justifiably to seek access to our territory” (Luedtke 130). After the September 11 attacks, individual European countries displayed a rapid transformation in stance and immediately set upon passing legislation that would ringfence their borders. For instance, the United Kingdom (UK) passed the Asylum, Immigration, and Nationality Act – a counterpart to the Patriot Act of the USA. The new legislation sought extensive powers to screen immigrants and deport persons whose actions could be demonstrated as being oppositional to the state (Luedtke 134). To date, it seems that many countries continue to interlock immigration and national security with Muslim immigrants being especially scrutinized.
Current Immigration Policy Adopted by Nations around the World
Countries have taken drastic measures to contain their respective immigration problems. This is in light of evidence that it is possible for states to completely lose control over their national borders. Moreover, even in countries within geographical and economic blocks such as the EU, immigration policy is highly fragmented (Veerbel 45). In China, the CCP has resorted to confining its stateless Uyghur population into concentration camps where their supposed terrorist and separatist ideals can be muted in perpetuity. On the other hand, the USA combines bureaucratic measures with law enforcement to control its immigration problem. Individual European countries have adopted strict deportation measures that ensure that illegal immigrants are promptly resettled in their countries of origin (Idemudia & Boehnke 35). In some countries, the fear of immigrants manifests itself as xenophobic attacks by the general population. This creates a situation whereby immigrants are not safe from physical, verbal, and psychological attacks by bona fide citizens. This can present a security and humanitarian risk, particularly for persons fleeing war in their home country.
Certain countries are cooperating on immigration policy in very imaginative ways. Southern European countries are engaging the North African countries that serve as crucial transit routes in an attempt to stymie the flow of immigrants through the Mediterranean Sea (Idemudia and Boehnke 38). Australia has set up offshore processing centers in the islands of Papua New Guinea and Nauru. These offshore processing centers are said to offer temporary accommodation for refugees before the Australian government reaches a permanent decision regarding each immigrant’s status. An Australian-US resettlement deal has seen close to one thousand detainees get permanent residency in the USA (Human Rights Watch). However, these centers have been widely criticized as inhumane with detainees spending more than half a decade without a permanent resolution on their status. Another drawback of offshore processing centers is that they are relatively costly for the Australian taxpayer. Another immigration policy adopted recently is the UK-Rwanda deal that will see asylum seekers in the UK processed and then resettled in Rwanda permanently. The deal will also include the UK sending a considerable financial package to Rwanda for their services. If the right policies are tabled, intra-state cooperation on immigration and security policy is possible
One of the prevailing debates around immigration policy and international security ranges around borders. On the one hand, certain policy-makers advocate for the shoring up of national and continental borders. Measures such as border walls, linearly dense border checkpoints, and the deployment of highly specialized anti-immigration enforcement agents have gained widespread prominence in certain parts of the world. This position is commonly adopted by countries with extensive border lines that are routinely breached by unwanted entrants. A case in point is the USA whereby former president Donald Trump used immigration policy as one of his major talking points during his successful campaign for the presidency of the USA in 2016 (Verney 138). Trump continuously pledged to build a physical barrier along the Southern border of the United States that would effectively stop Mexican and South American immigrants from setting foot on US soil. Verney asserts that Trump’s democratic election to the White House should not be separated from its associated stance on immigration (140). In many ways, it is evidence that the USA, like many countries, has an immigration problem that it strives to solve by all means.
Immigration Policy and National Politics
Immigration and security cannot be delinked from politics and social rhetoric. There are two cases of this unholy marriage in the USA, Europe as a whole, and individual European countries. In the case of the USA, consecutive governments can have two sharply contrasting immigration policies. While former president Donald Trump called for tough and unprecedented measures to combat refugees, the current administration has taken a much softer stance. In a formal report from the White House, Biden notes that “many of the biggest threats we face respect no borders or walls, and must be met with collective action” (7). This tactful move shifts focus away from immigrants as the potential cause of terrorists as has been the case in the USA since the September 9, 2001 attacks. Biden notes that today’s biggest threats are climate change and cyber-attacks and therefore, targeting immigrants with the zeal of the previous regime may be counterproductive. Covertly tied into all these policy stances is the need to endear oneself to voters. Regardless of the proponent, it is clear that constantly shifting policy cannot attain the necessary cohesion between immigration and security policy.
In Europe, policy on immigration has been similarly fractured and disoriented, and politicized. Hutter and Kriesi note that differing stances on immigration have resulted in a cleft in European political circles (341). One’s position on the immigration question is a key determinant of their stance on other matters. Political parties in Europe have resorted to making immigration policy a part of their brand. In particular, Natter et al., note that right-wing parties tend to be anti-immigration whereas left-wing parties tend to be pro-immigration (1). Over the past few years, right-wing parties formerly seen as extreme have won important elections in certain European countries owing to their immigration stance. Crucially, Natter et al., note that (3) politicizing migration policy restricts the space for immigration reforms. Natter et al add that regardless of the political party that forms government in European countries following an election, the heart of national migration policy largely stays the same (8). As long as politicians see immigration policy as a carrot to dangle in front of the electorate, true reform remains elusive. Moreover, there is a need for longitudinal (from government to government in case of an electoral handover) and cross-boundary harmonization of migration policy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, immigration policy and international security are inherently linked. This is particularly the case today when most immigration, primarily from the third world to the first world, is undocumented and illegal. Moreover, the link between the two has morphed into a categorization of immigrants and particularly Muslim immigrants as a threat to national security. Many governments have adopted drastic measures to keep immigrants at bay including the use of offshore processing units, concentration camps, and intra-state alliances to manage immigration better. Opportunistic politicians have further divided their electorates into pro and anti-immigration. Each side promises the solution to the crisis by declaring the measures they feel will resonate with the voters best. However, migration reform will only be achieved through mutual cooperation and the depoliticization of critical immigration issues. Fortunately, states have demonstrated that they can cooperate effectively before, including on an immigration strategy. However, it remains to be seen whether the next immigration reforms will draw from the optimistic pre-September, 11, 200l EU policy drafts or the closed borders policy that has dominated recent immigration debates.
Works Cited
Abramitzky, Ran, et al. “Intergenerational Mobility of Immigrants in the United States over Two Centuries.” American Economic Review, vol. 111, no. 2, 2021, pp. 580–608, Web.
Ahmed, Bilal Zenab. “Revolution and State Formation as Oasis Storytelling in Xinjiang.” Made in China Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, 2020, pp. 26–33, Web.
Bergmann, Adrian. “Violence, Migration, and the Perverse Effects of Gang Repression in Central America.” Media, Central American Refugees, and the US Border Crisis. Routledge, 2019. 36-58.
Biden Jr, Joseph R. Interim National Security Strategic Guidance. Executive Office of the President Washington DC, 2021. Web.
Gusciute, Egle, et al. “All Welcome Here? Attitudes towards Muslim Migrants in Europe.” International Migration, vol. 59, no. 5, 2020, pp. 149–165, Web.
Human Rights Watch. “Australia: 8 Years of Abusive Offshore Asylum Processing.” Human Rights Watch, 2021, Web.
Haner, Murat, et al. “Public Concern about Terrorism: Fear, Worry, and Support for Anti-Muslim Policies.” Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, vol. 2019, p. 237802311985682, Web.
Hutter, Swen, and Hanspeter Kriesi. “Politicising Immigration in Times of Crisis.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 48, no. 2, 2021, pp. 1–25, Web.
Idemudia, Erhabor, and Klaus Boehnke. “Travelling Routes to Europe.” Psychosocial Experiences of African Migrants in Six European Countries., Springer, 2020, pp. 33–49.
Luedtke, Adam. “The Effect of September 11 on EU Immigration Policy.” Immigration Policy and Security: U.S., European, and Commonwealth Perspectives, edited by Terri Givens., New York, Routledge, pp. 130–148.
Natter, Katharina, et al. “Political Party Ideology and Immigration Policy Reform: An Empirical Enquiry.” Political Research Exchange, vol. 2, no. 1, 2020, p. 1735255, Web.
Wojczewski, Thorsten. ““Enemies of the People”: Populism and the Politics of (In)Security.” European Journal of International Security, vol. 5, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1–20, Web.
Veebel, Viljar. “Is the European Migration Crisis Caused by Russian Hybrid Warfare?” Journal of Politics and Law, vol. 13, no. 2, 2020, p. 44-53, Web.
Verney, Kevern. “Bad Hombres: The Trump Administration, Mexican Immigration and the Border Wall.” The Trump Presidency, 2018, pp. 137–158, Web.