Immigration/Border Security and Terrorism - Research Paper Example

 Immigration/Border Security and Terrorism The idea of immigration and border security in the United States of America has a multifaceted link with the constant risk of terrorism. Border security incorporates the safety of terrain, seaports, and airfields. The link is distinctive in the sense that the national government is required to continually check and modify its border security strategy to deal with the risks posed on the United States in the form of human violence or the smuggling as well as explosion of a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ (Brotherton & Kretsedemas, 2008). Recent terrorism is the use of brutal, atrocious force in opposition to civilians as well as the intentional targeting for political or religious motives, an approach generally disliked in the official customs of the English, as well as French that established North America. Groups, which are otherwise too weak to lead to change by officially authorized or conventional military means, mostly finds it as a way out. During the 19th as well as early 20th centuries, terrorism was most often linked with central and east European rebels, communists, and socialists who used violence as well as killings to control labor strategy or alter the political formation. Following World War II, it became ever more associated with ‘fundamentalist Islamic associations’ who are against pro-Israeli strategies and feared the rising secular control of Western traditions. Violence, hostage taking, as well as hijackings was among the most familiar techniques used by revolutionary groups until the 1990s, when suicide bombings turn out to be the most common type of terrorist activity. On precisely what point the use of revolutionary movement shifts from legal means to terrorism is directly in linkage with one’s cultural ideals (Freilich & Guerette, 2006). Consequently, as immigrants to North America were involved in hostility, their actions were often cast in terms of terrorism. The apprehensions surrounding the authenticity of terrorism were significantly intensified due to attacks by Islamic fundamentalists on September 11, 2001, on United States of America. These attacks start an extensive public discussion on the place of terror inside the Islamic society and the capacity of Muslims to be true to the more intense elucidations of their belief at the same time as staying good civilians of constitutional states. Directly following the events of September 11, 2001, the national Government placed a top priority on apparent facets of homeland security, such as intelligence restructuring, as conflicting the border defense. Nonetheless, the government in addition to the American public ultimately articulated that in order for a large-scale attack like September 11 to take place, something had to be critically erroneous with the border defense equipments that were ready at the time. Nevertheless, every fanatic hijacker on September 11 had been a receiver of a transitory United States tourist visa, which indicates that he/she officially receive permit to be in the United States. If 19 people who were dedicated to creating damage in America were able to get past the government screening constraints that were in position, one could barely visualize how immense of a risk to America was created by the mostly abandoned Mexican border, Canadian border, and the various unsecured seaports. Nonetheless, the American community as well questions why attacking on illegitimate entries will hamper the capability of activists who come into the state with authorization (Hatmaker, 2006). After September 11, several actions have been taken to develop border defense in the United States. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security during 2002 in addition to the realization of various innovative strategies as well as procedures has without any uncertainty made America's boundaries, seaports, as well as landing fields securer than they were during 2001. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the risks placed by terrorism via America's terrain, harbors, as well as landing fields still exist; and there are still concerns as to whether the United States is actually protected from any more attacks. Terrorism can be domestic. “The Ku Klux Klan during the last part of 19th and in the early years 20th centuries, the Weathermen of the 1970s, and a variety of violent militia organizations of the 1980s and 1990s,” (Fine & Ellis, p. 76, 2010) all applied violent behavior. In particular, a way of dealing with what was supposed as injustice within the legal as well as constitutional structure of the nation. However, in many places around the globe, where individual privileges were not defended, and political involvement was not allowed, public usually embraced combined, extra-legislative, and even aggressive approaches to facilitate political transformation. Consequently, political activities linked with communalism as well as rebellion were mainly linked with immigrants. In particular, “when 1886 labor protest at the Haymarket Square in Chicago led to a bombing in which eight policemen were killed, hundreds of socialists and anarchists were arrested” (Alden, p. 219, 2009). Eight rebels, seven of them German settlers, were condemned of conspiracy, and four were given life sentence. Even though three of the convicted men were ultimately pardoned, the apprehension of immigrant extremism remained, making the way for the general terror of foreign political actions during the 20th century. Even though the use of hostility for political intentions within the United States rejected from the 1930s, there continued to be an unspoken suspicion of many, but not every, immigrant group. The link between immigration and terrorism was emphasized by two high-profile cases. During the September 11, 2001, attacks, nearly all of the hijackers had entered the United States lawfully and engaged in pilot schooling. Afterwards, it was realized that a number of them were in breach of the conditions of their admission but that the ‘Immigration and Naturalization Service’ (INS) had not taken appropriate action to stop them. During October 2002, the Beltway Snipers open fire on 13 people in the Washington, D.C., area, murdering 10 of them. Because of the September 11 attacks, the U.S. and Canadian governments were compelled to deal with terrorism as a domestic, instead of global, concern, which initiates a series of migration and travel modifications. In the United States, the USA PATRIOT ACT was quickly approved, offering a better scrutiny of foreigners and raising the authority of the Office of the Attorney General to recognize, take into custody, and expel foreigners. The act as well described domestic violence to incorporate acts hazardous to human existence (Lin & Green, 2001). These acts are a contravention of the criminal regulations of the United States or of any State that seem to be aimed to threaten or intimidate a civilian population; to control the course of action of a government by threats or force; or to have an effect on the behavior of a government by mass devastation, killing, or abducting. Furthermore, observing of a few foreigners coming on ‘nonimmigrant visas was instituted, passport photographs were digitalized’, and more wide-ranging background tests of all requests and appeals to the Department of Homeland Security were sanctioned. In addition, the SEVIS record was formed to locate the position of foreigners within the state on student visas, and the U.S. Attorney General’s Office now have the right to straight away expel any person believed to have terrorist connections. In addition, the State Department launched a waiting time of 20 days for visa claims from “men 16 to 45 years of age from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen” (Farnam, p. 99, 2005). Any claim thought to be doubtful was sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), resulting in an additional postponement. The extensive Mexican as well as Canadian borders gives terrorists many opportunities to illegitimately smuggle either artillery of mass damage into the United States or illicitly come into the state themselves. When it comes to artillery of mass destruction, the risk placed to land borders is understandable. During July 2007, the Director of National Intelligence declared a National Intelligence approximation that stated even though rebels will carry on to support conservative approaches such as violence and bombardments, worldwide terrorists, together with al-Qaida, are dynamically scheming to carry out chemical as well as biological assaults against the United States. This risk is obscured by the various possible ways of delivering this artillery that incorporates explosives, spray gadgets, military hardware, or home-based delivery devices. Besides, the sheer volume of both the Canadian as well as Mexican borders gave the Federal Government's security forces overwhelming challenges concerning their capability to defend the homeland (D’Appollonia & Reich, 2008). In accordance with a statement from the Congressional Research Service, there are huge complexities in protecting the various points by which public and commodities may penetrate officially, and the long borders, lightly protected stretches of shorelines and terrain borders’ entry seems against the law. As a result, it is very complicated for the government to protect each point by which public or commodities smuggled by individuals may enter. Theoretically, a terrorist eager to smuggle a weapon of mass devastation into the United States would have many spots - most of them unguarded - by which he or she could do so. In addition, a terrorist would have several techniques of utilizing a weapon of mass destruction. Both this information and the range of America's borders produce a huge risk for the defense of the United States. The United States has an extensive and appreciated custom of welcoming immigrants and tourists. However, the assaults of September 11, 2001, proved that a few come to the United States to carry out terrorist activities, to generate finances for illegitimate revolutionary actions, or to offer other sustenance for revolutionary acts, here as well as out of the country. It is the guiding principle of the United States to effort insistently to stop foreigners who involve in or to support revolutionary movement from coming into the United States and to keep in custody, take legal action, or expel any such foreigners who are inside the United States. With the consensus of the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence, overseas relationship officials from collaborating nations shall be asked to act as connections to the Task Force, where suitable, to accelerate inquiry and information sharing. Additional Federal units, such as the ‘Migrant Smuggling and Trafficking in Persons Coordination Center and the Foreign Leads Development Activity’ (Guild & Baldaccini, p. 293, 2006), shall offer the Task Force with every pertinent data they have with reference to foreigners assumed of involving in or providing some sort of support to terrorist movement. The Attorney General along with the Secretary of the Treasury, supported by the Director of Central Intelligence, shall straight away extend and put into practice multi-year arrangements to improve the exploratory and intelligence investigation potential of the INS as well as the Customs Service. The objective of this development is to boost considerably the attempts to recognize, trace, confine, bring to court or expel foreigners linked with, believed of being involved in, or behind terrorist action inside the United States (Guild & Baldaccini, 2006). The latest multi-year arrangements should considerably boost the amount of Customs and INS special representatives allocated to combined ‘Terrorism Task Forces’, as considered suitable by the Attorney General as well as the Secretary of the Treasury. These representatives shall represent fresh positions in addition to the presented on call special representative services of the two organizations. The United States gains significantly from global students who opt to study in this country. The United States Government shall carry on promoting and sustaining global students. The government shall execute actions to stop the exploitation of student visas and disallow some international students from acquiring schooling and guidance in sensitive areas, together with fields of study with straight relevance to the expansion as well as utilization of ‘weapons of mass destruction’. The government shall as well forbid the schooling and education of foreign public who would utilize this sort of education to damage the United States or its associates. The ‘Secretary of State and the Attorney General’, functioning in cooperation with the “Secretary of Education, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy”, (Hayworth & Eule, p. 193, 2005) and any other subdivisions or units they consider essential, shall expand a plan to achieve this objective. The plan shall categorize sensitive fields of study, and shall take account of actions whereby the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and United States educational institutions, functioning as one, can recognize challenging candidates for student visas as well as refuse their requests. The plan shall offer tracking the position of a foreign student who gets a visa to incorporate the anticipated major course of study, the position of the person as a permanent student, the classes in which the student admits, in addition to the supply of the finances sustaining the student's schooling. The plan shall create guiding principles that may incorporate control systems, for instance, restricted period student migration status, and may apply severe decisive factors for renewing such student immigration status. In creating this new plan of control, the ‘Secretary of State’, the ‘Attorney General’, and the ‘Secretary of Education’ shall seek advice from the educational society and other concerned institutions. The INS, in discussion with the Department of Education, shall carry out periodic evaluations of every institute licensed to get nonimmigrant students as well as ‘exchange visitor program’ students. These evaluations shall contain tests for conformity with ‘record keeping and reporting requirements’. Failure of institutes to act in accordance may cause the termination of the institute's endorsement to get such students. Congress and official representatives responsible for homeland defense will have to discover methods of improving the monitoring of visa candidates, border vigilance in addition to the scrutinizing of foreign persons already in the United States. However, to move ahead and recommend that the assault require a radical lessening in the amount of immigrants and tourists would be unreasonable and ‘counterproductive’ (Guild & Baldaccini, 2006). The simplicity with which the captors took advantage of this nation's careless enforcement of immigration regulations is certainly shocking. At least two of the activists were amid the expected four million foreign persons who have resided in the United States after their visas expired. A third acquired a student visa to go to a Berlitz language course in California, although never even turned up at the institution. In the consequences of the World Trade Center bombing during the year 1993, Americans were stunned to find out that one Palestinian caught up in the assault had resided in the country on a student visa even after he quit the school. The culprit was able to come into the United States during 1990 in spite of being on a government’s record of ‘undesirables’. During the year 1996, Congress voted for legislation trying to stiffen the regulation of immigration laws. However, actually many key stipulations have been chip away by a lack of teamwork among government organizations. The regulation ordered the expansion of a computerized method to record when every visa holder leaves, “As it is now, most people never check out of the country” (Cole, p. 283, 2005). It appears only rational that the government should be capable to classify foreign visitors who came with authorization but then continue to stay unlawfully. Foreigners who are terrorist operators usually use fake identity credentials to come into the US illegitimately. False credentials are as significant to activists and their organizations as their firearms and other explosives - they are instruments that facilitate them pursue their global trade of fatality and demolition. The concern of confidential confirmation in immigration proceedings is currently under attack by “editorialists in the media and from some members of Congress. What they fail to remember is that these proceedings are administrative in nature - not criminal - and such evidence, in spite of all the recent commotion, is very selectively utilized” (Scaros, p. 173, 2006). Deportation proceedings eventually result in an individual being sent back from the United States, even though foreign people may be held in custody while those proceedings go on. References Alden, E. H. (2009). The Closing of the American Border: Terrorism, Immigration, and Security since 9/11. Harper Perennial. Brotherton, David C. and Kretsedemas, Philip. (2008). Keeping Out the Other: A Critical Introduction to Immigration Enforcement Today. Columbia University Press. Cole, David. (2005). Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism. New Press. D’Appollonia, Ariane C. and Reich, Simon. (2008). Immigration, Integration, and Security: America and Europe in Comparative Perspective. University of Pittsburgh Press. Farnam, Julie. (2005). U.S. Immigration Laws under the Threat of Terrorism. Algora Publishing. Fine, Gary A. and Ellis, Bill. (2010). The Global Grapevine: Why Rumors of Terrorism, Immigration, and Trade Matter. OUP. Freilich, Joshua D. and Guerette, Rob T. (2006). Migration, Culture, Conflict, Crime and Terrorism. Ashgate Pub Co. Guild, Elspeth and Baldaccini, Anneliese. (2006). Terrorism and the Foreigner: A Decade of Tension around the Rule of Law in Europe. Martinus Nijhoff. Hatmaker, Steve. (2006). The Great Crusade: The United States' War on Terrorism, Appeasement, Collaborators, and Illegal Immigration. AuthorHouse. Hayworth, J. D. and Eule, Joe. (2005). Whatever It Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security, and the War on Terror. Regnery Publishing. Lin, Ann C. and Green, Nicole W. (2001). Immigration. CQ Press. Scaros, C. E. (2006). Learning about Immigration Law. Delmar Cengage Learning. Read More