Immigration And National Security

The initial difficulty in determining whether immigration to the United States constitutes a national security threat is determining what constitutes national security. Terms such as “national interest” and “national security” do not have a universally agreed-upon meaning. The term “security” covers a range of goals so wide that highly divergent policies can be interpreted as politics of security. (Wolfers December 1952) Traditional notions of national security are represented by theorists such as Hans J. Morgenthau for whom the national interest contained “. . . two elements, one that is logically required and in that sense necessary, and one that is variable and determined by circumstances” (Morgenthau December, 1952) The survival of the

state is the necessary element of national interest and the minimum requirements of the national interest are the integrity of the nation’s territory, its political institutions, and its culture (Morgenthau December, 1952) It was this theory of national security that held sway—largely uncontested—throughout the Cold War period.
Since the 1980s—and accelerating with the end of the Cold War—the content of national security concerns has expanded from the traditional focus on military threats to borders and governments to include nonmilitary sources of (Copeland 1993) An example of this more expansive notion is advanced by Richard Ullman who considers as a threat to a state’s security any actions or events that “threaten significantly to narrow the range of policy choices available to the government of a state or to private, non-governmental entities (persons, groups, corporations) within the state” (Ullman 1983)
In a similar vein, the January 31, 1992 Summit Declaration of the United Nations Security Council acknowledged that threats to international peace and security can come from nonmilitary sources of instability in the economic, social, humanitarian, and ecological fields and that such conflicts fall within the Security Council’s sphere of action. The Declaration also called for election monitoring, human rights verification, and repatriation of refugees as integral parts of the Security Council’s efforts to maintain international peace and security. (Copeland 1993)
However, these recent broadened ideas of national security stretch the concept to a point where its application would lead to illogical results. Under the recent definitions, a military attack against the United States is equivalent to a totalitarian regime refusing to allow a United States based human rights organization to operate in its country. Clearly the former represents a threat to national security and warrants a military response. Just as clearly, the latter does not. Therefore, this paper treats national security as it has been defined in the traditional sense. As will be demonstrated, immigration can be a threat to traditional ideas of national security even if one concludes it has not yet posed such a threat to the United States.

The recently expanded definitions of national security, therefore, elevate interests that Morgenthau would have considered as variable or secondary to necessary and make it easier to classify immigrants and refugees as national security threats. Morgenthau wrote that a state can never compromise or trade a primary interest. Yet the history of United States immigration and refugee policy is a series of compromises and trade-offs. Thus, it is fair to conclude that for the United States immigration is a variable interest, one which at any particular time it chooses to regard as a national interest (Morgenthau December, 1952)
Some argue that current immigration poses a threat to U.S. national security. They see immigration as a threat to the language and culture, destroying the sense of nationhood. Others believe immigrants an economic threat, taking jobs from U.S. citizens and imposing prohibitive costs by their use of social services. Still others draw a relationship between immigration and terrorism or increased crime. Alternatively, some argue that immigration bolsters our national security. Access to talent in a properly-regulated immigration system strengthens American resources in science and the humanities.
Examples abound of American-immigrant Nobel laureates, renowned inventors, business leaders, and scientists who have made immeasurable contributions to our prosperity (Reform September 1997).

For example, the admission of scientists fleeing from Germany and Italy before World War II was instrumental in the United States being the first to produce atomic weapons and gave the U.S. a distinct advantage in nuclear research. Highly-skilled immigrants supply talented workers for America’s world-class medical establishment, engineering sector, and higher education (Reform September 1997). These immigrants enhance the research and development capacity of U.S. firms and bring foreign language skills, contacts, knowledge, and experience that appear to offer a unique advantage in a global business community.

Strong immigrant support for family values strengthens and reinvigorates American values. Immigrants often play important and visible roles at the highest levels of the U.S. military and federal and local government. Renowned immigrant artists, performers, and athletes strengthen and diversify cultural institutions (Reform September 1997) The United States has been the world’s largest multiethnic and multicultural society, successfully integrating new immigrants from diverse heritages. (Reform September

1997)
Whether one subscribes to traditional or modern ideas of national security, it is fair to conclude that under certain circumstances immigration can pose a threat to national security.

Immigration is closely intertwined with foreign policy and national security, with each acting upon and being influenced by the other. To advance national security, U.S. foreign policy has been used to stimulate or inhibit migratory movements. The historical lack of attention by foreign policy decision makers to immigration has resulted in unintended migration to the United States. Virtually every type of foreign policy tool—economic, military, trade, or propaganda— has been used at one time or another to respond to concerns arising from immigration. The perception of and response to immigration by U.S. policymakers is seen in the context of U.S. national security. (Reform September 1997)

During the Cold War era when communism posed a clear and imminent threat, immigration policy was used to stimulate defections from communist countries and inhibit it from repressive allies. In the post-Cold War era, where no such obvious and imminent threat exists, immigration policy has become more restrictive in response to domestic political perceptions. Immigrants and their descendants attempt to influence U.S. foreign policy in the same manner as other interest groups. (Reform September

1997)
However, historically their successes have been limited almost entirely to those situations where their goals were consistent with prevailing U.S. national security needs.
The presence of immigrants in the United States creates situations where foreign governments become involved in attempting to influence U.S. foreign policy and immigration policy either to protect their countrymen in the U.S. or their national interests that may be advanced by the presence of their nationals in the United States. As advances in travel and communication make migrations increasingly easy, the ramifications of foreign policy decisions upon immigration will need more than ever to become an established part of the foreign policy decision making process. The connections and implications between these issues need more focused attention. Addressing migration concerns effectively requires multilateral approaches and cooperation with international agencies. (Reform September 1997)