The Risk Of Migration And The European Counter Terrorism Agenda

Migration policies are often designed with the sole objective of influencing international migration by either restricting or encouraging circular migration, immigration or emigration(Ripsman & Paul, 2010). Open border policies have contributed to the uncontrolled to the flow of illegal immigrants into countries and in turn generating challenges to the host countries. The fundamental basis for arguments has been whether open immigration policy or restricted immigration policy

In 2010, when Ahmad wrote his article, immigration was on the rise in the UK. Many immigrants were being accepted into the country which created a record high. Although this situation may seem to be a good thing, it can be deceiving. Due to the increase in immigration, the government had pledged to cut migration by an exponential amount. “The British, who ruled my country for decades and taught me the English that I speak, have always had the power to keep me out of their country” (Ahmad 38). At this

Micah Issitt and Andrew Walter define immigration as the “movement of persons from one nation or region to another with the purpose of seeking permanent residence.” Unfortunately, illegal immigration has become more prominent in the U.S. arousing debates on what to do with the illegal migrants. The 9/11 attacks on the twin towers were caused by terrorists, who penetrated our weak borders to gain access to their planned attack. Under the Obama era, two and a half million more immigrants have crossed the border illegally than during Bush’s reign in office, which shows how our border is becoming more and more vulnerable. If the borders are not secured soon, more and more migrants will come illegally and take jobs from legal Americans, also

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, immigration control and national homeland security have been issues of concern for both the national government and private citizens. In the wake of the attacks, a lot of articles were written about what the appropriate response should be to prevent another attack. In 2004, Mark Krikorian wrote an article for the Providence Journal entitled “Safety through Immigration Control” in which he contends that the only means to keep America safe from a follow-up attack is to strengthen and enforce immigration law to prevent terrorists from being able to enter the country. Edwidge Danticat, writing for The Nation in 2005, provides a juxtaposition to Krikorian’s stance in her essay “Not Your Homeland”, in which she describes her witnessing of the inhumane conditions many immigrants are forced to endure in the name of increased security to protect the country. She questions whether the added protections are worth the human cost we are paying by treating immigrants and refugees as guilty until proven innocent. At the crossroads of these two perspectives lies the question: what is the proper balance between national security and the humane treatment of immigrants?

In our present times national security became a priority. According to Tricia Escobedo, the last year’s terrorist attack in Paris on the night of November 13th left 129 people dead and hundreds wounded. The perpetrators were a mix of French nationals, and Syrian refugees that migrate to Europe due to the current open door policy for asylum seekers (1). We have a problem because our southern border is an open door for foreign terrorist to enter our country, due to the fact that the many people cross illegally. According to Stephen Dinan, nearly 800,000 people arrived in the past two years (1). I am veteran of the United States Army that deployed many times to Afghanistan, I lived in what we call forward operating bases, this forward operating bases had a secure perimeter due to the presence of physical barrier in this case a wall, in order to protect the people inside, and this solution work because it keep any threats away. We had 100 percent control of the people entering the Forward Operating Base, this kind of control reduced drastically any possibility that a foreign terrorist could enter inside the base, and cause severe casualties between the civilian and military personnel.

In 2010, when Ahmad wrote his article, immigration was on the rise in the UK. Many immigrants were being accepted into the country creating a record high. Although this situation may seem to be a good thing, it can be deceiving. Due to the increase in immigration, the government had pledged to cut migration by an exponential amount. “The British, who ruled my country for decades and taught me the English that I speak, have always had the power to keep me out of their country” (Ahmad 38). At this point in Ahmad’s life, he has had time to adjust to the

November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall falls amid the thawing of the Cold War. Consequently, an elated Europe welcomed a new ‘borderless’ continent. The Schengen agreements dissolved anachronistic boundaries that once separated nations, allowing peoples, such as the Ruthenians, to exercise a loyalty to the states within their immediate realm of influence, while simultaneously preserving their independent identities. A quarter of a century later the continent is amid a refugee crisis unseen since World War II. Detention, deportation, bureaucratic barriers, military, and satellite technologies have all been a part of the some of the most extensive and aggressive border enforcement programs in history. Endeavors that have stoked xenophobic fears and spawned grievous confrontations between some of the wealthiest nations on earth and a stateless people from the most impoverished.

The media coverage in the United Kingdom especially in the present climate can be described as anti migrant and asylum seekers. There is a suggested sense of being under siege with threats of invasion of being overwhelmed via Calais. With Headlines such as ` Migrants 'threaten EU standards' ` (BBC News, 2015), and reports from the government does little to show a different image as the recent comment from `British Prime Minister David Cameron has defended his policy of restricting immigration, arguing that illegal migrants are trying to "break into" the country`. Regardless of the fact that there are little other means in which they can gain asylum but to enter illegally. In considering this I am not suggesting that one should have no systems in place to control and monitor immigration but feel that this negativity does not address that people have the right to claim asylum nor does it show positive images or outcomes of those that have made lives

Media outlets often inflate or speculate about either the numbers of asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants. Hence causing the public to feel threatened by these numbers. Not only does the media scrutinise numbers but newspapers and television images and videos play “dominant stereotype of the young dangerous man breaking into Australia and threatening ‘our’ communities 7”. Unsurprisingly “31 precent of headlines and 53 precent of text about asylum across all newspapers has negative connotations. The media has had a detrimental affect on the outcome of the Australian security border protection by continually asking the question “What is being done to prevent these terrorist acts from the public? 7”

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the immigration policy measures to respond to future threats of terrorism. Ever since 9/11 the immigration policy needed to be changed with the Enhance Border Security, the Homeland Security Act, and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. These three new policies helped and made driving difficult. For example, many college students would like to study abroad but getting approval for a Visas takes time. Reports say that because the hijackers were all Muslims, a small proportion in the immediate aftermath of the attacks was focused on Muslims or those who were perceived to be Muslims, with broader use of nationality-based screening and enforcement programs.

One of the factors that define what the experience of these incoming asylum seekers will be like is how the citizens of the welcoming country treat them. Therefore it is important to consider how after 9/11, the opinions of citizens towards immigration has changed. Gail Stewart talks about, how civilians were told that the perpetrators of the attacks were immigrants from the Middle East, who obtained legal visas; therefore it created a sense of discrimination in the face of civilians and policy makers. Stewart talks about the differing ideas of people. Some suggested that the country should go as far as, “keeping the borders closed” (Stewart, 2004). Meanwhile others feel like the whole idea of the US is based on welcoming immigrants, and “The greatest victory for Osama bin Laden, of course, would be if America lost faith in its openness" (Stewart, 2004). The road the government decided to take is requiring a much more detailed background check, for anyone seeking to immigrate to

Born out of patriotism, xenophobia and a desire to “mark the moral boundaries of society” (Critcher, 2003, p.5), uncertainty over immigrants “resonates with deep-rooted anxieties about Australia’s national identity and way of life” (Martin, 2015, p.1). Following the ‘Signification Spiral’ model (Poynting & Morgan, 2007, pp.3-4), the issue of refugees intensified after September 11 2001, whereby inextricable links were produced between terrorism and Muslim boat people, eventually leading to the identification of refugees as fearful invaders. The Federal Elections that year took the emphasis away from domestic topics, and stressed national security and border protection (Mares, 2002, p.1); forming a moral panic that has remained up to the present day. Further, these groups as an entirety were associated with other problems occurring at the same time – embodying the concept of ‘convergence’ by linking refugees to increased violence, terrorism, wastage of the taxpayer’s money on ‘foreigners’ and the straining of resources and

The biggest problem we have especially recently, is the terrorist threat immigrants pose to the U.S. Enforcing border control minimizes the terrorist threat, but with everything going on right now, more and more refugees are accepted into our borders with the possibility of being a terrorist. Ever since 9/11 happened, security was greatly maximized to protect our country from another terrorist threat, but now we are dealing with ISIS. “A grim online warning from a self-described American jihadist

Giry starts off the subject matter by claiming that violent attacks carried out by radical Islamists or “jihadists”, such as terrorist bombings of London’s subway or the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo von Gogh, have been taken as primary evidence that European immigration and integration policies have failed. She has rendered this diagnosis as flawed since it overlooks the fact that the majority of Muslims in Europe have nothing to do with radical Islamism and are struggling to fit in.

Because Norway has an extensive border neighboring Sweden, Finland, and Russia, immigration has long been an issue for the Norwegian government. BBC News. (n.d.) reports on how xenophobic attitudes and political pressure coupled with nationalistic sentiment creates distressing rhetoric resulting in fear for many Norwegians. Norway has devised plans to deport migrants back to their country of origin given the country is deemed safe. These policies have come under the