The Use and Misuse of ‘National Security’ Rationale in Crafting U.S. Refugee and Immigration Policies

Abstract

Since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, U.S. immigration and refugee policy has developed based on narrow and evolving theories of ‘national security’. Immigration reform legislation, federal regulations, and administrative policy changes have been justified in terms of the nation’s safety. On 1 March 2003, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was folded into the massive new U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), formally making immigration a homeland defense concern. Counterterror and immigration experts increasingly agree on what constitute effective and appropriate immigration policy reforms in light of the terrorist threat. Unfortunately, many of the post-September 11 policy changes do little to advance public safety and violate the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. These include reductions in refugee admissions, the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers, the blanket detention of Haitians, and a safe third-country asylum agreement between the United States and Canada. Other measures offend basic rights and may undermine counterterror efforts. These include ‘preventive’ arrests, closed deportation proceedings, and ‘call-in’ registration programs. This article reviews post-September 11 U.S. policy developments based on their impact on migrant rights and their efficacy as counterterror measures. It argues for a more nuanced and rigorous sense of ‘national security’ in crafting refugee and immigration policy.