From Policy on the Edge: |
|
Shifting the Conversation: No Longer Immigration
The 9/11 attacks shifted the conversation from amnesty to control to security and then to immigration and border reform. Although the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, Latin America was drawn into the struggle. Previous amnesties were stopped because the U.S focused on reversing growing immigration legislation.
"There have been zero amnesties passed since 9/11. It may be that 9/11 did change the environment so that it became harder for Congress to continue to pass an amnesty every couple years."
Roy Beck, President of Numbers USA
The increasing calls from control to border security has garnered attention and money from the government, resulting in a new national commitment to border security - but not a better or more focused policy. The 9/11 attacks changed border security to become associated with counter terrorism and domestic security. However, border security has quickly enveloped traditional operations that focus on drugs and immigrants. Along with this, it has empowered anti- immigration movements to new and powerful arguments for reform.
|
Since 9/11, policies regarding terrorism have misappropriated immigration laws to promote anti-terrorism goals. As a result, immigration policy has lost its independent policy agenda. Virtually no new immigration policies have been created separate from terrorism policies since 9/11. Even well-developed plans for immigration policy reform have been dropped since 9/11, as each idea was evaluated first for what it did for our national terrorism policy and only second for its immigration goals.
|
Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Border Patrol adapted its rhetoric to reflect its recently acquired "homeland" security mission. While the Border Patrol had occasionally referred to "securing the border" in the past, the use of the term "border security" gained prevalence only over the past decade. References to border security and border insecurity not only shape discourse about the border, but also about immigration, drug policy, US-Mexico relations and domestic security.
Tom Barry, Center for International Policy
Homeland Security Institutionalized
Knowledge that the 9/11 hijackers came into the country through visas that shouldn't have been granted led to a the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the end of the Immigration and Natrualization Service in 2003, which had once been in charge of all immigration functions. Immigration which was once a labor and civil rights issue became a
enforcement and terrorism issue under the DHS. |
According to Peter Andreas, a professor at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University, the creation of the DHS was the most significant government reorganization since the Cold War and the National Security Act of 1947. It incorporated 22 government agencies into a single organization.
|
What was the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Justice Department split into three parts, all under the newly formed DHS: Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Three sub-agencies within DHS were given authority over immigration matters.
|
Despite the border security buildups and millions of dollars spent, no terrorists or terrorist weapons have been seized. DHS does point out, however, that every year it regularly apprehends illegal border crossers from countries, but they are caught in single digit numbers and mostly from Cuba. |
The first steps taken in regards to policy development were very restrictive, including the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001 and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (EBSVERA) in May 2002.
Changing Policy: Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act
The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (EBSVERA) of 2001 was signed into law in May 2002. The EBSVERA adds 3,000 immigration inspectors and investigators, requires universities to keep better track of foreign students, and heightens scrutiny of visa applications from countries deemed sponsors of terrorism.
|
Numbers Show
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 had an effect on the entire world, but they also had an effect on the future development of immigration policy. The most significant change was the widespread recognition of the link between military security and the effective control over global migration. The government’s focus on the war against terrorism has essentially blurred the lines between immigration and terrorism.
Focus Changed
Before more tax dollars are dedicated to border security, we need new policy frameworks for immigration and illegal drugs that disaggregate these issues from homeland and national security.
In adopting the border security rhetoric following 9/11, the federal government raised unrealistic expectations that the border can indeed be sealed and secured. Yet, never in our nation's history have we actually controlled our 1,963-mile border with Mexico. Instead, border policy has been propelled by ambiguous annual statistics on arrests and seizures offered by the Border Patrol to justify budget increases.
Yet, in practice, DHS's new border control and immigration enforcement programs were not focused on demonstrable homeland security threats. Both the increased border fortifications and the intensified enforcement under the SBI umbrella continued the Border Patrol practice of targeting illegal immigration and marijuana smuggling, which were shoehorned into the new homeland security rubric of "dangerous people and goods."
The new index of border security represents a new concession to border hawks, and is yet another example of how DHS is moving further and further away from its own central mission - securing the United States and serving as an adjunct national security apparatus. The farther away we are from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the more DHS is prone to Orwellian redefinitions, such as translating security as safety. the administration also thrust us into a new era of "homeland" and border security with little reflection about costs and consequences. Without a clear and steady focus on the actual security threats, "homeland" and border security have devolved into wars against immigrants and drugs.
Tom Barry, Center for International Policy