9/11 Case Study

1. Is current immigration policy seriously treated as a national security issue? How was it treated prior to 9/11? The current immigration policy is seriously treated as a national security issue due to the rise of illegal immigration, drugs smuggling, and terrorism in recent years (Andreas, 2009). Preventing another 9/11 has been at the top of the agenda in all recent presidential administrations, which has made the immigration policy to fall around this issue by creating new anti-terrorism programs and initiatives that restricts the admission of person into the United States (Andreas, 2009). Before 9/11 immigration in the United States was a “Low Politics” issue meaning that it was not a top priority for presidents, government and state officials (Andreas, 2009). During that time the United States and Mexican border was just a mangle chain like fence with no border patrol officers and anybody could leave and enter the U.S. as they pleased without going through any border searches (Andreas, 2009). After 9/11 the issue of immigration went from “Low Politics” to “High Politics” to the extent that many presidential campaigns have run promising that immigration will be one
The functional equivalent of the border can also be the final point of exit before leaving the United States (Kim, 2009). The reason for the existence of functional equivalents of the border is because not all persons and merchandise coming from foreign lands to the United States enter directly through a land border (The Border, 1999). By not having functional equivalents of the border it would be impossible for customs officers to conduct searches and detentions in mid-flights when airplanes cross the land borders. Some examples of functional equivalent of the border are international airports, sea ports, and piers among many