7
Is Immigration a Threat to National Security?
Masud Gaziyev
Undergraduate Student, Bachelor of Arts in Public Affairs
ADA University, School of Public and International Affairs
December 4, 2016
Is Immigration a Threat to National Security?
This paper follows the critical discussion on immigration and security, and argues that immigration is not a universal threat, and the perception of immigration as a threat depends on the different social constructions of immigration which later determines the approach towards immigration. Additionally, the social construction of immigration as a threat to security will depend on many factors such as economic hardships, the political interests, and psychological factors one of them being the perceptions of the importance of distinct cultural identity. Nevertheless, it is also acknowledged that the increasing numbers of immigrants like any other changes that are brought by the globalization raise challenges to the notion of national sovereignty which is an important condition for the national security. However, the effectiveness of governance and the strength of the state, not the immigration itself, will usually determine whether this challenge is transformed into a threat. The interpretation of the challenges posed by immigration simply as threats undermines the economic advantage that states might get by accepting immigrants.
The increasing securitization of the immigration is partly the result of the social construction of the uncertain environment posed by huge immigrant flows as "threats" by the bureaucrats and politicians. According to Didier Bigo (2001), "unsettled environment is manufactured so as to legitimize the activities of security agencies and frame social changes as manifestations of insecurity." (p. 121, Guiraudon & Joppke). That is, the bureaucrats and politicians who are dealing with the design of the immigration policies, construct the challenges posed by large human flows as the problem of insecurity in order to expand their powers. Moreover, Didier Bigo also argued that "security agencies benefit from the social construction of threat that turns immigration into the cause of society's problems and can boost their budgets and legitimacy" (p. 128). That is, the bureaucrats and security agencies play a central role on securitization of immigration as it legitimizes their existence. In other words, they create a different social construction of the problem of immigrants, which helps them to boost their power and legitimize their existence. The creation of such discourses in the age of information, also can be said to have large influences on the public through the media (p. 126). In other words, politicians and the bureaucrats will try to show to the public through the media that they have simple solutions to the challenges posed by immigration flows by increasingly securitizing the process to eliminate any threats originating from immigration flows. Citizens feared by the economic uncertainties and their physical security following the rise of recent terror attacks, will increasingly accept that social construction by the state agencies. Then, that social construction has a potential to make people to suspect the most Muslim immigrants as having ties with terrorists, or the most Mexicans with the ties with the drug dealers. In addition, it can be argued that the increasing securitization of the immigration due to the social construction of the immigration as a threat among the public also benefited the rise of the politicians in the west who are increasingly opposing open migration policies, particularly Donald Trump of USA. In short, the social construction of the immigration as a threat helps politicians and bureaucrats to legitimize their existence and increase the scope of their works.
However, that approach fails to explain the societal differences in perception of immigrants. In other words, not all societies oppose immigration, and not all societies welcome immigration. According to John Sides and Jack Citrin (2007), the opinion among the European public towards immigration depends more on identities, and the lack of information than anything else (Citrin & Sides). Identities are associated with psychological and emotional significance of having a distinct cultural identity and nation, "so groups perceived to threaten a nation's distinctive identity are likely to elicit hostility" (p. 480). That is, among the society people are more concerned with the fear of outsiders who can reshape the distinct cultural identity of the society. That could explain the different attitudes towards different immigrants. For instance, for Azerbaijanis the existence of the Turkish minority would seem less harmful for the cultural identity than the existence of the Russian minority due to similarities between the cultural identities of Azerbaijan and Turkey. Moreover, the tendency to overestimate the number of immigrants also plays a role on the opposition towards immigration (p. 478). That is, per several studies, when the public is provided with the real facts, it has had significant consequences on their attitudes towards immigration. (p. 501). Moreover, even though at the individual level of analysis the economic hardships might be associated with the growing resistance towards immigration, at the country level, there is no necessary relationship between the perceived threat from the immigrants with the economic conditions or the size of immigrant workers in the country. According to 2002-03 European Social Survey, neither the citizens in less economically developed states, such as Spain and Poland, nor the countries with significant immigrant populations such as Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland seemed to vigorously oppose the immigration (p. 501). Therefore, it was argued in the article that psychological factors such as identities and the lack of information have more impact than the economic interests, on the social construction of the immigrants as threat.
As it was discussed in the last two paragraphs, immigration as a threat is more likely to be socially constructed concept rather than being out there. That is, the different perceptions of threats posed by the immigrants results in the different attitudes towards the immigrants. The securitization of the immigration is usually a result of the perceived threat by the state or the members of society. State agencies, be it a politician or bureaucrat have their own ways of dealing with any uncertainty that may arise from any uncertain social condition. That is, they construct their own definitions of what is a threat and what threat may arise from uncertainty. That social construction combined with their aim for the political power results in the perception of the immigrants as potential threats. Nevertheless, it can be argued that the public outcry and public fears have importance in the formation of public policies. Therefore, it is important to consider how the public opinion itself is shaped by the perception of immigrants. The public opinion towards immigration is increasingly shaped by the perceived threat that immigrants might pose to the distinct national identity. Nevertheless, the importance of socioeconomic and the information availability also should not be underestimated. In both cases, it can be argued that the answer towards the question of the immigration as a threat involves huge relativity. In other words, it is the type of distinct social construction that determines whether the immigration is accepted as a threat or not. Trying to find simple answers towards the relationship between immigration and security is misleading. Different societies and states might have different perceptions of the relationship between security and immigration because of the different social constructions of the immigrants with different backgrounds. Therefore, the immigration itself is not a universal threat rather it is a socially constructed threat.
Even though the immigration is perceived and relative threat, the rise of immigration flows following the globalization, pose significant challenges to the traditionally accepted conditions for national security such as having national sovereignty. Having national sovereignty is highly associated with the national security, as the power of sovereignty grants states to exercise their power over the issues happening within the borders of the state, and the failure to do that will make states feel insecure. With the globalization, states clearly have no full control over what might happen within their borders. In the traditional literature, the effect of globalization on national sovereignty is mostly concerned with the economic sphere as states have become highly interdependent on one another due to liberal world order which advocated the removal of any economic boundaries. However, "like other flows, the rising tide of people crossing frontiers is among the most reliable indicators of the globalization." (International Organization for Migration, 2003, p. 4). That is, in addition to commercial flows, the rise of immigration is also the part of the changes coming with the globalization.
National sovereignty, then implies having monopoly of legitimate power over deciding who crosses national borders. However, as John Torpey argued, "states do not necessarily control all movement-just as they do not always have a monopoly over the means of violence." (Adamson, 2006, p. 178). That is, there are illegal immigrant groups and other non-state actors such as crime networks, which threatens this monopoly by employing various strategies to achieve their ends. As Peter Andreas asserts "Globalization may be about tearing down economic border , but it has also created more border policing work for the state" (Andreas, 2003, p. 84). That is, state for the sake of security will naturally try to minimize any challenges which may undermine the state's ability to manage border controls. It is more relevant in the case of the United Sates, as after the terror attacks in 11 September whose preperators were actually immigrants, the borders became increasingly militarized (Rodriguez, 2008). In addition, in the case of refugee flows, the sovereignty of the state is also being limited by the international documents which aims to protect the security of the individuals facing persecutions in their home countries. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution" (UN General Assembly, 1948).
It can be argued that immigration poses challenges and brings changes to the traditionally accepted notions and ideas associated with the national sovereignty of the states. However, the effectiveness of the governance and the strength of the state usually determines whether these challenges pose a threat to national security or not. Challenges posed by illegal immigration and refugee flows does not necessarily mean that these challenges are clear threats to the security, but rather it means that states are now required to employ effective measures to prevent illegal immigration. In addition, challenge implies that the states are now required to cooperate with other states to employ effective techniques to respond to those challenges (Adamson, 2006, p. 180). In addition, interpreting challenges simply as threats undermines the economic and scientific power that the states might be getting from the high-skilled immigrants. Some developed countries such as the USA, Australia and Canada were highly dependent on the immigration flows for maintaining their economic power through the centuries. States are getting benefits from highly skilled immigrants whose education and uprising services are usually paid by their home countries (Papademetriou, 1997-1998, p. 20).
The discussion throughout the essay was based on the discussion on whether the immigration flows can be characterized as threats or not. It was argued that immigration is a socially constructed threat, rather than universal threat. That is, depending on the interests of the politicians, and the psychological factors affecting the public who then elect those politicians, immigration can be socially constructed as threats to the national security or to the security of the national identity. Therefore, that issue is very complex one which implies that associating the immigration simply with threat is misleading due to its relativity. Nevertheless, it was argued that increasing flows of immigration do challenge the traditionally accepted condition for national security which is sovereignty. However, the effectiveness of the governance usually determines whether this challenge will be transformed into a threat or not. Finally, the association of the immigration simply with threat undermines the beneficial side of the immigration, as the effective state policy might successfully attract high-skilled labor into economy which will then make state more economically powerful.
References:
Guiraudon, V & Joppke, C. (2001). Controlling a New Migration World. London and New York: Routledge
Sides, J & Citrin, J. (2007). European Opinion about Immigration: The Role of Identities, Interests, and Information. British Journal of Political Science, 37 (3), 477-504. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4497304
International Organization for Migration. (2003). World Migration Report 2003: Managing Migration Challenges and Responses for People on the Move. Geneva.
Adamson, F. (2006). Crossing Borders: International Migration and National Security. International Security. 31 (1), 165-199. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137542
Andreas, P. (2003). Redrawing the Line: Borders and Security in the Twenty-first Century. International Security. 28 (2), 78-111. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137469
Rodriguez, R. (2008). (Dis)unity and Diversity in Post-9/11 America. Sociological Forum. 23 (2), 379-389. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20110274
United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf
Papademetriou, D. (1997-1998). Migration. Foreign Policy. 109. 15-31. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1149453
