Why is immigration considered (and represented) as a security issue?

In the 21st century, an age where security threats such as terrorism are major concerns, immigration is often believed to be a serious issue. Not only is it sometimes considered a danger for national security but also for economy and national identity (Barnard 2009, p. 2). Many politicians, political activists and some media try to convince us that immigration is a threat in the modern world, and that something has to be done about it. Others argue that such problems are exaggerated or untrue and that if immigration has any effect, it is beneficial for both foreigners and native citizens (Brader et al. 2008, p. 959; Paxton and Mughan 2006, p. 550). In my essay I am going to evaluate the statement made by some people that nowadays immigration is a serious security issue. First of all, I will describe the concept of security. Then, I am going to present the opinions of those who believe that immigration is a security problem. After that I am going to use contrary arguments in order to show why I believe that effects of immigration are often exaggerated and that it can sometimes have a positive influence. I am also going to show some examples by using case studies of the United States and the United Kingdom.

First of all, in order to answer the essay question, I anticipate it is important to outline the concept of security. As many scholars have said, the concept of security have been unfairly neglected, even in such an insecure period as the Cold War (Baldwin 1997, pp. 8-9). According to Baldwin (1997), security can be described as 'a low probability of damage to acquired values' (p. 13). He also argues that while trying to describe the concept of security, several things have to be specified: to whom security is addressed (e.g. individuals, the state, the international system); what values are secured (i.e. physical or psychological safety and well-being, autonomy, economic welfare, etc.); how much security is and is not enough (we cannot be either absolutely secure or insecure because security is not black and white); from what kind of threats it is meant to secure (e.g. during the Cold War the 'Communist threat' was often mentioned, however it was not specified if it referred to ideological threats, economic threats, military threats, etc.); by what means it is to be carried out; at what cost (as other areas have to be sacrificed in order to increase security); and finally, in what period of time (e.g. in the short term it is effective to build a fence which will secure us from our hostile neighbours but in the long run it would be more effective to achieve peace with them) (Baldwin 1997, pp. 13-17).

In order to define the concept of security, it is also necessary to assess how much security is valued. Baldwin (1997) describes three approaches that might help in doing so. Firstly, the prime value approach suggests that we think what our lives would be like without security. Thomas Hobbes (1996; 1651) comes with the answer: 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short', as he described the state of nature in his work Leviathan (p. 84). However, security usually does not outclass other values. Most people would not desire absolute security if it was possible. An optimum level of security would probably still leave some place for risk, doubt and danger (Dahl and Lindblom 1953, p. 50 in: Baldwin 1997, p. 19). Secondly, the core value approach, saying that security is one of the crucial values and therefore outranks non-core values. Thirdly, the marginal value approach, which says that a certain minimum amount of security, just like any other value, is needed. However, in some situations people admire certain values more than normally (e.g. a glass of water will be much more valuable for a person lost in a desert than for a person drowning in a lake). Therefore, for some states the value of security will be higher than for others (Baldwin 1997, pp. 18-20).

Security is especially emphasised by Realists, for whom state's survival is the most crucial goal. As Waltz (1979) argues, '[i]n anarchy, security is the highest end. Only if survival is assured can states seek such other goals as tranquillity, profit, and power' (p. 126 in: Baldwin 1997, p. 21).

This is a preview of the whole essay

I described the concept of security in order to show how important it is in the modern world. As I have just shown, it is sometimes thought to be most crucial, even more important than other values. Therefore if it is true, immigration should probably be considered as one of the key issues. However, as I have said before, it is also believed that security is important, indeed, but its value is often exaggerated, which statement I agree with. As a result, immigration should seem not to be a key issue in states' policies.

The world democracies have long had a hostile attitude toward immigrants. Even the United States, a country which gained its status of an empire partially thanks to immigrants' efforts, has a long history of prejudice and stereotypes against its newcomers. Even though immigrants who moved to the United States in the nineteenth century had the same European origin as previous newcomers, they were quite unwelcome and experienced hostility on the American soil (e.g. the Irish). Today some form of antagonism against immigrants still exists in the United States (Paxton and Mughan 2006, pp. 549-550). Fear of aliens is not exclusive to Americans, though. It also occurs in other parts of the world, e.g. the United Kingdom. Until the last decade or so Britain was considered a country of emigration. However, it has changed and a major immigration wave is occurring in the United Kingdom (Coleman and Rowthorn 2004, pp. 579-581), which often causes fears from indigenous citizens, politicians, activists and the media (e.g. predicted Irish immigration to Britain in 2011 [Whitehead 2010] or the polls showing that the British are most concerned about immigration among the Western countries). In the following part I am going to show what arguments the opponents of immigration present and why they consider immigration a security issue.

Immigration has been a particularly hot issue in the United States since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Following those events there was a widespread opinion that something had to be done about immigration. The American borders were said to have been 'broken' and the American public opinion wanted the level of both illegal and legal immigration decreased (Portes 2008, p. 2; NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School Poll 2004, p. 1). It has been estimated that the foreign-born population of the United States is growing by roughly 700,000 each year and at least one third of it includes illegal immigration. Moreover, one third of the annual American population growth is ascribed to immigration (Espenshade 1995, p. 201). According to immigration opponents, illegal newcomers bring about a few major problems. Firstly, they cross the borders against the will of the country. Secondly, they take jobs from native citizens and cause a decrease of their salaries. And thirdly, they have a negative influence on the native culture and the hegemony of the language (Portes 2008, p. 2). There is also a popular stereotype that with a flow of immigrants, the crime rates go up (Sampson 2006).

However, these assumptions are usually more likely to be false. Evidence does show that there are indeed some drawbacks of immigration. In a case of a mass flow of foreign unskilled workers into the country, native labourers might be in danger of ending up jobless. Also housing costs can be driven up and wages might be pushed down due to immigration (Coleman and Rowthorn 2004, p. 609). On the other hand, though, there are several positive aspects of immigration. Basing on the British example, statistics show that in the fiscal year 1999-2000 immigrants paid £2.5 billion more in taxes than they received in benefits and state services (Coleman and Rowthorn 2004, p. 606). In the United States illegal immigrants pay $5 billion more than they take out and most of the $122 billion that they earn they spend in the U.S. (Barnard 2009, p. 4). They often also apply for jobs that Americans do not want to do. For example, in 2007 in North Carolina farmers advertised that there were 150.000 vacancies for workers for $10 per hour. Only 300 native citizens applied for the jobs, and none of them finished the harvests (Portes 2008, p. 2). It is also a myth that immigrants negatively affect the native culture. For example, most of the Hispanics who immigrate to the United States, learn English. As a result, 98 per cent of the second generation speak English fluently (Portes 2008, p. 3).

The claim that there is a threat of a high level of immigrant criminality is usually false, too. In the United States a significant number of immigrants are from Latin America. Many of them have got a low level of education, cross the border unlawfully or overstay their visas. As a result there is a popular stereotype (whose growth we could have seen since the 9/11 attacks) that plenty of them are criminals and will commit crimes in the U.S. (Rumbault and Ewing 2007, p. 5). However, it can be argued that increased immigration (including undocumented immigration) might be a cause of lower crime rates. In the United States at the end of the 1990s, the level of immigration hit its peak, while at the same time the number of homicides significantly dropped. After 2001, when immigration flows started to decrease, the number of murders began to rise (Sampson 2006). According to another report, while immigration to the United States reached its record level between 1994 and 2005, the violent crime rates dropped by 34.2 per cent, robbery rates decreased by 40.8 per cent and assault rates by 31.9 per cent (Rumbaut and Ewing 2007, p. 1). Immigrants also have lower imprisonment rates than native citizens. At the time of the 2000 census, 3.5 per cent of native-born males aged 18-39 were incarcerated, while only 0.7 per cent of immigrants of the same gender and age were in prison (Rumbaut and Ewing 2007, p. 2).

Since 9/11 some lawmakers have been concerned that terrorists associated with al-Qaeda might use the Mexican-American border to get to the United States. A growth of the smuggling industry have been observed (5.5 per cent of apprehended illegal immigrants were trying to have been smuggled into the United States in 1994, which grew to 22.2 per cent in 2004) as well as an increase of non-Mexicans being smuggled into the United States (1.1 per cent in 1997, 5.8 per cent in 2004 and 13.2 per cent in 2005). These numbers have caused fears that some of those non-Mexican aliens might be terrorists (Ewing 2006, p. 1-2). The majority (precisely 56 per cent) of the American public opinion expressed their concern that illegal immigration increases the probability of further terrorist attacks (NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School Poll 2004, p. 3). As Frum and Perle (2003) argue, '[i]t is here [i.e. on the American soil] that the terrorists hope to inflict a devastating blow that will kill thousands, topple the U.S. economy and destroy Americans' will to fight; here that they hope to win a victory that will embolden the angry millions of the Muslim world to join their jihad' (p. 61). There are many ways of how terrorists can attack the United States from inside: biological poisoning, destroying nuclear power plants, chemical factories and gas pipelines, hijacking means of public transport, etc. As they argue, in order to prevent such attacks three things have to be done. Firstly, terrorists ought to be denied entry into the United States. For example, Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, managed to enter the United States illegally instead of being stopped by the officers at the Miami airport. Moreover, twelve out of 48 Islamic terrorists planning attacks in America since 1993 were in the country illegally and almost half had broken immigration laws in a serious manner. As Frum and Perle say, good execution of the existing immigration laws would probably have prevented most of the attacks on the American soil, including the September 11 attacks (2003, pp. 61-65). Secondly, terrorists' freedom of action should be stopped, e.g. using the Patriot Act (a surveillance system introduced in October 2001) and racial profiling (Frum and Perle 2003, pp. 73-76). Thirdly, support that terrorists groups originated overseas receive from extremists in North America should be hindered (Frum and Perle 2003, p. 82). As these events proved, foreign-born extremists can carry out deadly attacks from inside. This example shows how immigrants (both legal and illegal) can act against the national security and as a result, why immigration can be seen as a security issue and provides the politicians who want to tighten immigration laws with credible arguments.

However, there are some arguments against the aforementioned theories, which say that the likelihood of such events to occur is very small. According to a United States report, most of the non-Mexican illegal immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border come from Central and South America. An extremely small number of illegal Arab and Muslim immigrants caught at the border could pose a threat to national security. Between 1999 and 2004 only 0.02 per cent of all illegal aliens apprehended at the border principally came from the thirty-five Middle Eastern, South Asian and North African countries where terrorist groups could be a threat to the United States (Ewing 2006, pp. 4-11). Nonetheless, even though this type of illegal immigration has not caused any threats yet, and the government reports on immigration are based more on fears than facts, it does not mean that terrorist networks could not use the U.S.-Mexico border to get into the United States (Ewing 2006, p. 5).

The immigration policies of the Bush administration created an aura of suspecting all immigrants of terrorism. It is important to remember that there have been a number of citizen terrorists (e.g. Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people in the bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, and John Walker Lindh, an American citizen who joined the Afghanistan's Taliban army in 2001). A prejudice that all newcomers might stay behind terrorist attacks is unfair to all immigrants (Tumlin 2004, pp. 1229-1230).

In my essay I showed why immigration is often said to be a serious security issue. At first I described the concept of security and argued that security's importance is sometimes exaggerated. Then I presented arguments of those who believe that immigration is a problem in today's world. They believe that it raises the risk of terrorism, economic problems, decrease of national identity and increase of crime rates. I argued that such assumptions are usually either exaggerated or false, and also quite unfair to immigrants. Moreover, there are several positive aspects of immigration. Terrorist threat from immigrants is relatively low and the history proves that there have been some terrorists among the native citizens as well. Immigration flows can cause some economic problems (such as loss of jobs for manual workers) but they also have some positive influence (e.g. immigrants pay more in taxes than receive in benefits and spend most of their earned money domestically). A crisis of national identity seems to be a myth, too, as foreigners usually assimilate in their new country and decide to learn the language. Finally, aliens (even those who cross the border illegally) are not likely to increase crime rates but, as the statistics I presented show, in fact they commit crimes less often than native citizens.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Baldwin, D. A.: 'The Concept of Security' in Review of International Studies (1997), 23, pp. 5-26

Barnard, A.: 'Myths and Realities of Illegal Immigration' in Points of Migration (June 2007)

Brader, T., Valentino, N. A. and Suhay, E.: 'What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat' in American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 52, No. 4 (October 2008), pp. 959-978

Coleman, D. and Rowthorn, R.: 'The Economic Effects of Immigration into the United Kingdom' in Population and Development Review, Vol. 30, No. 4 (December 2004), pp. 579-624

Espenshade, T. J.: 'Unauthorized Immigration to the United States' in Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 21 (1995), pp. 195-216

Ewing, W. A.: Border Insecurity: U.S. Border-Enforcement Policies and National Security. Washington: American Immigration Law Foundation, Spring 2006

Frum, D. and Perle, R.: An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. Random House: New York (2003)

Hobbes, T.: Leviathan. Oxford University Press: Oxford (1996; 1651)

Paxton, P. and Mughan, A.: 'What's to Fear from Immigrants? Creating an Assimilationist Threat Scale' in Political Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 4 (August 2006), pp. 549-568

Portes, A.: 'The Fence to Nowhere: The Case for a Bilateral Labor Management Program' in Points of Migration (April 2008)

Rumbaut, R. G. and Ewing, W. A.: 'The Myth of Immigrant Criminality', Border Battles: The U.S. Immigration Debates. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on February 11, 2011:

Sampson, R. J.: 'Open Doors Don't Invite Criminals' in New York Times (March 11, 2006). Retrieved from the World Wide Web on February 11, 2011:

Tumlin, K. C.: 'Suspect First: How Terrorism Policy is Reshaping Immigration Policy' in California Law Review, Vol. 92, No. 4 (July 2004), pp. 1173-1239

Whitehead, T.: 'Immigration to stay high, warns think tank' in The Telegraph (December 30, 2010). Retrieved from the World Wide Web on February 11, 2011:

Polls that I used in my essay:

'British “most concerned” about immigration' in The Telegraph (February 4, 2011). Retrieved from the World Wide Web on February 11, 2011:

NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School Poll: 'Immigration: Summary of Findings' (2004). Retrieved from the World Wide Web on February 11, 2011: