The Impact of Immigration on Homeland Security - Dissertation Example

THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON HOMELAND SECURITY INTRODUCTION: “There is probably no more important tool for preventing attacks on United s soil than the nation’s immigration system because the current terrorist threat comes almost exclusively from terrorists who arrive from abroad” – Steven Camarota (Center for Immigration Studies), as quoted in Rudolph (2004: p.2). Donley; Pollard (2002: p.139) define Homeland Security as an umbrella concept, incorporating a range of goals and objectives, missions, means, components and threats related to the security of the United States. The significant new factor is the focus on potentially catastrophic threats aimed directly at U.S. territory, infrastructure, and population, which is in addition to the existing authorities of U.S. government departments and agencies. The events of September 11, 2001 made it crucial for the United States Government to develop the department of Homeland Security on a war footing. Rudolph (2004: p.2) states that the fact that the 9/11 terrorists manipulated U.S. immigration laws in order to infiltrate the country and to carry out their attacks on American soil, showed the strong link between global terrorism and international migration. The key questions that faced the policy makers were based on how the country could have got so vulnerable, and what action should be taken for protection against global terrorism. DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH: Migration is an international phenomenon that works to facilitate both globalization and interdependence among the different countries and geographic locations. Prior to 9/11, the need for a multilateral regime focused on facilitating flows and reducing illegal immigration. For the United States and Canada, there has been a demand for highly skilled labor in the field of information technology. Certain other sectors of the economy have required unskilled foreign labor as well. For Mexico and other developing countries like it, emigration offers a solution for the problem of unemployment in these countries, and also provides significant foreign exchange. Policy makers were of the opinion that it is crucial to craft “smart borders” that have the ability to filter out terrorists, criminals and other undesirables, while permitting the flow of commerce (Rudolph 2004:pp.3-4). The changing of United States’ immigration policies at the turn of the 21st century: The events of September 11, 2001 had the greatest impact on American perceptions of threat and subsequent calculation of national interests. In an October, 2001 address, President George W. Bush declared that the war on terrorism was the urgent “task of our time” (White House briefing, Tom Ridge: Oct.2001). The issue of “homeland security” and “war on terrorism” became the primary focus of United States foreign policy. According to Lehrer (Newshour: Dec12, 2001): At least nine of the nineteen hijackers held responsible for the terrorist attacks were in the country on valid tourist or student visas. The visas are legal permits issued by the government so that foreigners can visit the United States for travel or study. Three of the hijackers had entered the country legally, but stayed beyond their visas’ expiration. The method of entry of the other seven hijackers is unknown, which critics feel, point to the flawed immigration policy of the United States. The Year 2000 Census report showed that there are approximately 31 million foreign-born people in the United States, which is about 10% of the total population of the country. Thousands of people enter the United States with legal or illegal documents, and the government is not able to screen their backgrounds for dangerous activity, or keep track of them once they are here. Immigration officials are unable to ascertain whether people on temporary visas leave the country at all. Valera (2006: p.281) states that American Immigration Policy is a tightly controlled system that serves the nation’s interests, underneath its surface of everchanging complexity. For immigration, three categories are given priority: 1) Relatives of American citizens and permanent residents: family based immigrants. 2) Person sponsored by a U.S. employer, due to lack of a U.S. worker for the job: employer-based immigrants. 3) Persons facing persecution on religious or political grounds: refugee or asylee immigrants (Book Review:(Ed) Hing:2004). Post September 11, 2001, while the country is divided about immigration, sweeping policies such as The Patriot Act have been enacted to secure America amidst growing resistance to immigration (Valera, 2006: p.282). Post-September 11, 2001, the mission of the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) was to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks (Executive Order 13228: 2001, quoted by Danley; Pollard (2002:p.138). In the Office of Homeland Security, a series of bureaucratic re-organizations include: new homeland security positions and budgets in virtually every federal department agency , plans for a unified Northern Command for the defence department, etc. The U.S. counter-terrorism agencies were dissected by the administration, Congress, innumerable commissions and studies for structural weaknesses that could have allowed for vulnerability to the September 11 attacks. The organization and policies for an entire range of activities for preventing, pre-empting and responding to terrorism, will be based on the recommendations and proposals of the above entities. These activities encompass: intelligence, law enforcement, military operations and procurement, diplomacy, public health and safety, financial enforcement, border security, immigration control, aviation security, and federal disaster assistance to state and local authorities. In response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration’s new budget proposed a dramatic increase in federal spending for homeland security (Kettl, 2003: p.1). Strategy and performance driven measures needed to be adopted for providing United States citizens with at least a minimum level of defence. The administration hoped to channelize the expenditure on: 1) Supporting first responders like the police, firefighters, and emergency medical professionals. 2) Defending against bioterrorism. The October 2001 anthrax attack pushed the threat from biological and chemical weapons to the top of the national agenda. Developing mutual aid agreements to strengthen the capacity of state and local public health systems. 3) Securing America’s borders. Enforcement of border policy and enhancing the capacity of the Customs service, the Coast Guard, and the Immigration and Naturalization services. 4) Using 21st century technology for securing and strengthening homeland defence. Information sharing especially among federal agencies, and among the federal, state and local governments was supported by the Bush budget. For the taxpayer’s assurance that they are getting their money’s worth from these investments, strategic thinking was required for spending on areas that presented the greatest risks. Two other important issues also needed to be considered: a) Measuring performance and assessing the importance of the money spent, and trying to determine the level of effectiveness of the homeland security system. b) Building a basis as a minimum level of protection for all citizens, for an effective homeland defence system. An attack anywhere could put Americans everywhere at risk. Defining the basic level of protection was not easy. Setting goals and defining measurable performance indicators was essential. The homeland defence system needed to devise a process for focusing its energies and investing its resources through collaboration among the various agencies (Kettl 2003: pp.4-5). Events are usually the impetus of public policy innovation and change (Kingdon 1984; Newman 1998) as quoted in Newmann (2002: p.127). Homeland security can be seen as a subset of national security. Foreign terrorist organizations, whether they are acting against U.S. interests abroad, or targeting U.S. territory, are motivated by their opposition to the United States’ global pre-eminence and to specific aspects of U.S. foreign policy (for instance, U.S. support for Israel or U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia). Crafting a coherent strategy requires a view of terrorism as a political act undertaken by groups with very definitive political agendas (Sloan 2001; Smith and Thomas 2001) quoted in Newmann (2002: p.128). The rank and file of the terrorist cadre may be fanaticism, background, revenge or psychological instability, but the leaders of terrorist groups are engaging in politics by other means: terrorist violence. The new threat environment, U.S. strategy, and governmental organization for homeland security should identify three categories: the new threat environment, instances where national security and homeland security must operate in tandem, and instances where they must act separately. 1.What are the current immigration policies?: According to Donley; Pollard (2002: p.141), policy making has to take into account three realities: 1) There can be no single strategy for homeland security. 2) Not feasible to capture all the missions, tools and components related to homeland security in a single department or agency. 3) Homeland security challenge is primarily a challenge of inter-agency and inter-governmental affairs. For sustained results, the goals and objectives for homeland security need to be identified. A set of strategies need to be developed for meeting these goals, assess national capabilities and identify national requirements to support the strategies, and deconflict roles and functions. A very difficult set of policy issues need to be negotiated, that affect individual freedom, privacy and economic growth, as well as national security. High levels of coordination and operational effectiveness among the powerful and disparate departments and agencies, will help the country to be focused and proactive on the threat of terrorism (p.144). Although anti-immigrant rhetoric and initiatives diminished somewhat as the economy picked up in the late 1990s, the events of 9/11 and the economic recession of 2001-2 effected an about-face in the subsiding of nativism, generating new policies, administrative practices, and court decisions that are harshly anti-immigrant. Together these measures have activated a formidable battery of legal and material resources that limit the movements, rights, and opportunities of immigrants in the United States. To an extent perhaps unprecedented in American history, federal policy and national political rhetoric are focused on eliminating the presence and employment of undocumented immigrants in the nations interior. A closer inspection of public practice at the local level, however, raises doubts as to the uniformity of such anti-immigrant sentiment and points to substantial disparities between national policy and local practice (Wells, 2002: p.2). The separation of power at the federal level between three co-equal and overlapping branches, the relative ease with which interest groups access the policy making process,and the intensity with which executive-branch bureaucracies guard their organizational turf: these three aspects of U.S. political life, solely and in combination, have substantially shaped the contemporary state’s pursuit of “homeland security” (Kroenig; Stowsky 2006: p.227). Contrary to conventional wisdom, the war on terrorism has not markedly strengthened the power the American state. In the wake of such a major attack on U.S. soil, a significant expansion of the government to meet the newly perceived threat would be expected, perhaps even movements towards the creation of a garrison state. What has been witnessed instead is merely an ostentatious reshuffling of bureaucratic boxes. Kroenig; Stowsky state that a careful look at the evidence reveals that the assumption was inaccurate that there was danger post-September 11, of creating an American police state. What has been most striking about the U.S. counter-terrorism response is not how much state power has grown, but how little has changed (p.231). The most compelling and most undertold story of U.S. homeland security policy, is not the growth of state power but the number of proposals that never made it through the American political process. Even cases usually cited as examples of state expansion reveal on scrutiny: the fierce institutional resistance to state expansion inherent in the American system. The overwhelming majority of proposals to increase state powers in the United States after September 11, were resisted, restrained, or even rejected outright (p.232). Current proposed immigration policy changes: According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2005: p.122), some migration policies that will be coherent with development are: 1) Encouraging temporary and return labor migration so that developing countries can benefit from transfers of knowledge. 2) Introducing a strategy for avoiding recruitment of highly skilled professionals from countries with a shortage of those skills. 3) Encouraging foreign students to become involved in development projects in their home countries. 4) Encouraging research in areas of concern to developing countries, e.g. malaria. 5) Finding ways to lower transaction costs for remittances through improving the international financial structure. 6) Encouraging the creation and maintenance of diaspora networks. 7) Increasing the number of people allowed to enter the country on humanitarian grounds. Although in theory the capacity to make and enforce immigration policy is reserved to the federal level of government, in practice, the status and treatment of unauthorized immigrants on the ground are highly dependent on the political-economic features of local communities and the concerns and strategies of local actors, states Wells (2002: p.3). That is, in contrast to the characterizations of the "state" found in resource mobilization theories of social movements that portray it as a unitary, cohesive, and determinant structure whose operation effects an integrated and predictable pattern of intent and implementation that either provides or withholds resources from movement actors. The U.S. state is comprised of multiple and intersecting administrative layers and branches with varying and often conflicting goals, operating norms, and purviews of legitimate authority relating to immigrants rights. 2. Prior to the terror attacks, how was immigration effected? In the three books reviewed by Ghandnoosh; Waldinger (2006: p.730), they agree with authors Tichenor and Ngai that controlling migration earlier rather than later reduces the social and political costs. Imposing employer sanctions in the early 1970s before undocumented numbers began to seriously rise might have changed employer behavior at a time when the immigrant network had yet to spread widely. If the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act had offered an amnesty to all illegal immigrants then living in the United States, thus ensuring that no constituency remained for some amnesty of the future; and similarly if it had put emphasis on employer sanctions and found a way to make the program work, it would have become harder for a new cohort of undocumented workers to get started in the United States. Author Joppke’s insists on “universalistic immigration policies” (p.51) or a “principle of non-discriminatory immigration policies” (p.69), as if the rich democracies were ready to take a neutral stance towards the number and range of persons who would be allowed to cross the border and settle down. Most developing countries also have policies designed to restrict immigration (United Nations: 2002: pp.18-19). Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, reform had to tackle the pathologies that arose from the policy choices made before. Ghandnoosh and Waldinger, in their books’ reviews (2006: p.731), were of the opinion that since the methods of reform would be difficult to execute, the course of least resistance would mean allowing more admissions. The argument of Freeman (1995: p.881), about the inescapable tendencies towards expansion would seem to hold as opposed to Tichenor’s emphasis on the alternating swings between expansion and restriction. Unlike in the past, the American state hands out plenty of entitlements. Since there is difficulty in controlling borders and deporting people who make it past the frontiers, one thing that the government can do is to create a difference in the people who are of country and the people who are in the country. In today’s policy environment restriction on rights can be implemented at the same time as the expansion on the admissions dimension. Federal policies with immigrant-inclusive outcomes are most likely in localities where immigrants form a sizable portion of local residents, are highly connected among themselves and with native-born co-ethnics, are politically active and influential, and comprise a significant part of the local economy. Legal advocates are important spearheaders of immigrant-inclusive challenges, as many of the principled grounds for contesting the practice of immigration law are rooted in legal culture. Alliances between employer and immigrant advocate groups have also proven effective, as both have reason to oppose the apprehension of illegal immigrants and the former can wield considerable political clout (Wells, 2002: p.27). 3.What loopholes did terrorists use to gain access to the United States? Prior to September 11, most airlines contracted out security screening services to private security firms such as Argenbright Security, International Total Services, and Globe Aviation Services. The airline with the most flights leaving or arriving at a particular concourse was normally responsible for hiring screeners for that concourse, sometimes airlines jointly hired them. Security standards were promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration, which also occassionally sent agents to test the system. This was the entire extent of the federal role (Kroenig; Stowsky 2006: p. 237). After the terrorist attacks, a federal take-over of airport security was called for. The September 11 hijackers had scouted their targets carefully, taking their chosen flights repeatedly to check passenger loads and test airline security. The fact that nineteen hijackers, four of them wanted by law-enforcement officials had been able to board four trans-continental flights, armed with razor-sharp box cutters was enough to convince the Senate to vote 100-0 on 11 October, 2001 to federalize airport screening. Current developments indicate that the state is beginning the process to slowly cede this power back to the private sector (Kroenig; Stowsky 2007: p.241). According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), 2005: p.1, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks highlighted vulnerabilities that existed in the visa process, particularly the lack of emphasis placed on interviews and visa reviews as anti-terrorism tools. 4. What coutermeasures exist to close these loopholes? In October 2002 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the visa process should be strengthened, and that increased priority should be given to national security. On November 25th, 2002, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Visa Security Officers (VSOs) enhance homeland security through their review of visa applications at posts in Saudi Arabia. VSOs have access to and experience using important law enforcement information not readily available to consular officers. Moreover, VSOs’ border security and immigration experience, can assist consular officers during the visa process. The integration and expansion of databases and automated screening systems is necessary for homeland security, states the GAO directive, 2002: p.27, but these are not sufficient to identify threats that are not yet known. Systems and mechanisms for recording and reporting performance-related data are continually improving. These will further demonstrate that visa issuance is more secure because of DHS’ unique enforcement capability and national security role. As described in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Strategic Plan, the visa security program is an important tool in ICE’s efforts to “prevent exploitation of our customs and immigration systems”. The VSP focuses on preventing terrorists and other criminals from obtaining visas to enter the United States. Development of surveillance technology, regulation of computer security, from the management of passenger screening at airports, to the detention of terrorist suspects, and from the organization of domestic intelligence to the surveillance of the United States citizens (Kroenig; Stowsky 2006: p.226-227). Other factors are: the detention of enemy combatants, cyber security and domestic intelligence. The state’s scope of authority is measured as the number of functional issues over which the government exerts control, and the breadth and effectiveness of control within each funtional issue. Functional issues relevant to homeland security include: domestic intelligence and warning, border and transportation security, domestic counter-terrorism, protection of critical infrastructure, defense against catastrophic threats, and emergency preparedness and response (p.233). Data mining contributes towards counter-terrorism. For detecting and preventing terrorist attacks, the ability to extract hidden patterns and trends from large quantities of data is very important for detecting and preventing terrorist attacks (Thuraisingham, 2003: p.313). Enhanced effectiveness of state power can be indicated by a structural re-organization, or by increases in the level of resources including technologies on which the state can draw in order to execute a particular function. For example, the data-mining software that was under development in the Total Information Awareness program (TIA), did not grant the state authority to collect domestic intelligence, but it would have vastly increased the government’s ability to exercise this form of control (Kroenig; Stowsky, 2006: p.233). Only in the case of the Patriot Act has there been an expansion of state authority as expected by the war-makes-the-state concept. The Patriot Act increased the scope of the state’s authority to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens and resident aliens. Federal law-enforcement officials are permitted expanded access to Americans’ medical, financial and academic records. It allows e-mail and internet activity of Americans to be secretly monitored for intelligence purposes, and allows decisions to investigate to be made by federal law enforcement officials, not courts. Citizens’ choice of reading materials at libraries can be examined by federal officials, who are also granted virtually complete discretion over the designation of domestic, political and religious groups as terrorist organizations. All these activities can be undertaken without any requirement to notify suspected individuals or organizations that they are under investigation (p.236). In March, 2006, Congress voted to renew a revised version of the Patriot Act that curbed some executive powers and built in new safeguards to protect civil liberties. Despite this resistance, the Patriot Act nonetheless represents the study’s only case of an expected increase in state power. The executive branch had always had the ability to detain prisoners, but by designating a new type of prisoner, the enemy combatant, it was able to expand its influence within this pre-existing function. Yet this executive privilege has been substantially circumscribed a series of judicial rulings (Kroenig; Stowsky 2006: p.241). The decision to re-orient the focus of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was made. The ability of the FBI to exercise this increased capacity for domestic intelligence, will be limited by competing missions and cultures. Cyber security: The Bush Administration released a new national strategy to secure cyber space in time for the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks. The new strategy would have increased the scope of the state’s authority to police and protect cyber space: a critical infrastructure. But before the strategy could be implemented, it was watered down to the point of meaninglessness by private interest groups. Total information awareness: The TIA program is a set of software tools that enabled federal law enforcement officials to detect transaction patterns, thought to indicate terrorist activity. Then, to rapidly scan and combine information from multiple public data sources. Suspicious transaction patterns presumably triggered surveillance on potential terrorist suspects. Congress halted federal funding for TIA and issued instructions for its closure (Kroenig; Stowsky 2006: p.242). 5. Will the counter-measures infringe on the rights of current United States citizens or legal immigrants? The development of surveillance technology will not intrude into the privacy of the citizens or legal immigrants. So also, regulation of computer security is not expected to infringe on the personal data of the general public. The management of passenger screening at airports is vital for security purposes, and at most will only mean a loss of certain duration of time. Since apprehending suspects will be done based on high evidence, the detention of terrorist suspects will not be a cause for alarm regarding wrong identity. From the organization of domestic intelligence to the surveillance of the United States citizens, the crucial observation work will not be intrusive and will be carried out with a high level of technology and finesse. The counter measures are not expected to infringe on the rights of current United States citizens or legal immigrants. Because the September 11 hijackers were non-citizens who had entered the United States through the immigration system, it is not surprising that most of the immigration functions were transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security (Aleinikoff, 2004: p.94). The innovations are expected to yield an immigration system with better information and more integrity. Improved monitoring of population flows across national boundaries, better customer service and complete criminal and security checks on applicants for immigration benefits. The division of enforcement and service functions is expected to yield a beneficial reform. For the reorganization to succeed, a substantial increase in resources is required to reduce backlog and to apprehend those who overstay visas, realistic plan for entry and exit at borders, accurate information in databases and technology that integrates databases. The large and continuous flow of undocumented migrants across the United States’ borders has to be controlled for comprehensive results to be achieved. Recommendation of a policy that balances civil liberties with freedom from threats to America’s open borders: United Nations data showed that economic motivation predominantly explained global migration patterns, from the late 1980s to the turn of the twenty-first century (Alexseev, 2005: pp.5-6). People continued to leave poorer and less economically stable states, in search of livelihood in richer and economically more stable states. And yet migration is seen as a security issue in a disproportionately large and growing number of studies, from the late 1980s. The security issue as related to migration is especially predominant from the early years of the twenty-first century, with threat perceptions growing with the passage of time. A new policy can be recommended, which balances civil liberties with freedom from threats to America’s open borders. Based on the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s charter of policies coherent with development (OECD, 2005: p.122) the following attributes would be considered as necessary: 1) An immigration policy which stresses upon development projects in the home countries, from where the international students or job-seekers arrive. Incentives to join development drives in the immigrants’ home country would ensure that they serve their homeland as well. 2) Labour migration should be permitted only on a temporary basis. In this way, high level skills will not be lost from the donor country, and also, an exchange of knowledge and skills can be encouraged. 3) Identifying the areas of research most required in the donor countries, and supporting the immigrants in research work in those areas, for development and benefit of their homeland. 4) Ensuring that the new immigrants will be able to find a network of existing diaspora from the same region. 5) Allowing the entry of people on humanitarian grounds, as has been the traditional open door policy of the United States for all those who needed her help and shelter. 6) International financial transaction costs to be minimized, to be of real benefit to the immigrants. 7) Including the strategy of avoiding the immigration of highly skilled professionals, in order to avoid any ongoing “brain-drain” or skills depletion from the donor countries. CONCLUSION: It is seen that the immigration policies that existed prior to the September 11, 2001 attack by terrorists, were inclined to encourage the flow of people and skills from other countries into the United States. However, the terrorist attacks changed everything. Reorganisation as well as development of governmental departments such as the Department of Homeland Security, were immediately brought into action to counter the threat. Immigration policies were changed, to include only selective immigration. Currently, further immigration policy changes are being proposed and are already on the anvil. Due to the sustained threat of global terrorism, the policies are formulated with high levels of strategy. REFERENCES Alexseev, Mikhail A. 2005. Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma: Russia, Europe, and the United States. Cambridge University Press. Aleinikoff, T. Alexander. 2004. Department of Homeland Security’s First Year: Immigration. New York: The Century Foundation. Donley, Michael B; Pollard, Neil A. 2002. “Homeland Security: The Difference Between a Vision and a Wish”. Journal: Public Administration Review. Vol.62, Special Issue: pp.138-145. Freeman, Gary. 1995. “Modes of Immigration Policies in Liberal Democratic Societies”. Journal: International Migration Review. Vol.29(4): pp.881-902. Ghandnoosh, Nazgol; Waldinger, Roger. 2006. “Strangeness at the Gates: The Peculiar Politics of American Immigration”. Journal: International Migration Review, Vol.40, No.3:pp.719-734. Book Reviews of: 1) Selecting by Origin: Ethnic Migration in the Liberal State. By Christian Joppke, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. 2) Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. By Mae Ngai. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. 3) Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America. By Daniel Tichenor, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. Kettl, Donald F. 2003. The Century Foundation Homeland Security Project: “Promoting State and Local Government Performance for Homeland Security”. Kroenig, Matthew; Stowsky, J. 2006. “War Makes the State: But Not as it Pleases”. Journal: Security Studies, Vol.15, No.2, pp. 225-270. Lehrer, Jim. NewHour for Students: “Changing Immigration Policy”. December 12, 2001. Web site: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec01/immigration.html Newmann, William W. 2002. “Reorganizing for National Security and Homeland Security”. Journal: The Public Administration Review. Vol.62, Special Issue: pp.126-138. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2005. Policy Coherence for Development: Promoting Institutional Good Practice. Publisher: OECD Online Book Shop. Rudolph, Christopher. Homeland Security and International Migration: Toward a North American Security Perimeter? IRPP Conference on North American Integration, April 1-2, 2004. Thuraisingham, Bhavani M. 2003. Web Data Mining and Applications in Business Intelligence and Counter Terrorism. CRC Press Publisher. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2002. International Migration Report 2002. New York: United Nations. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO): Report to Congressional Committees. 2005. Border Security: Actions Needed to Strengthen Management of Department of Homeland Security’s Visa Security Program. Diane Publishing Company. Valera, Pamela. 2006. “America’s Immigration Policy”. Journal: Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. Vol.6, No.1, pp.281-282. Book Review: Hing, B.O. (Ed.) 2004, Defining America Through Immigration Policy. Philadelphia: Temple Universiy Press. Wells, Miriam J. 2002. “The Grassroots Reconfiguration of U.S. Immigration Policy”. Paper presented at AFL-CIO/ Michigan State University Workers’ Rights Conference, East Lansing, Michigan, October 11-12, 2002. White House briefing by Tom Ridge, Homeland Security director: “Terrorist Attacks in New York and Washington, DC”, Press Release, October 20, 2001, U.S. Embassy, Caracas, Venezuela. Web site: caracas.usembassy.gov/wwwh909.html . Read More