U S Immigration Laws Under The Threat Of Terrorism

Annotation When the United States tightened its immigration policies in response to concerns over terrorism, Microsoft's Bill Gates and General Electric's Jeffrey Immelt warned that some of these restrictions were harmful to US economic interests. Further, academic and business leaders warned that the restrictions were causing many of the world's most promising international students of science and engineering to go elsewhere. Under pressure from the academic, science and business body, in February 2005 the US State Department eased the Visa Mantis Program by extending the validity of science-related visas from one year to up to four years. Will more rational policy reforms follow? US Immigration Laws examines many of the dramatic changes that have occurred to immigration laws in recent years, and points to areas that can be adjusted to reduce needless burdens while maintaining security. Many of the policy changes discussed were implemented after the attacks of September 11, 2001, but several of these laws were created throughout the 1990s, some after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The opening chapter examines that very event and the remainder of the book follows the progression of modifications in immigration laws in the US up to the present. The book concludes with an assessment of the future of immigration and immigration policies. This book is written for those who have an interest in current events, immigration, law, political science and the legislative reaction to terrorism. It is intended to provoke scholarly debate through a thorough examination of immigration policies as they have been influenced by the threat of terrorism. * Julie Farnam is an immigration specialistworking with universities, the International Rescue Committee, and community groups to counsel immigration applicants on student immigration rules and regulations, and adjustment of status applications and naturalization applications. Ms. Farnam also writes on immigration and.

An immigration specialist assesses policy changes since the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the passage of the USA Patriot Act, and comments on the future of US immigration, including foreign students, refugees and asylum seekers--Providedby publisher.

Over the past eight years, thousands of legitimate refugees who pose no threat to the United States have had their applications for asylum, permanent residence, and family reunification denied or delayed due to overly broad provisions of U.S. immigration law that were intended to protect the United States against terrorism. Changes to the immigration laws enacted as part of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the REAL ID Act of 2005 greatly expanded the immigration law's provisions relating to "terrorism." At the same time, the federal agencies charged with enforcing these laws began to interpret both the old and the new provisions in increasingly expansive ways. This report documents how these changes in law and in legal interpretation are affecting refugees ranging from peaceful advocates for democracy to former child soldiers. The report offers recommendations to Congress and to the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State.

This book examines a broad range of issues in order to better understand if, how, and why immigration policies and practices have changed in the US, Western Europe, and Commonwealth countries in response to the threat of terrorism.

This report describes for the first time the totality and evolution since the mid-1980s of the current-day immigration enforcement machinery. The report's key findings demonstrate that the nation has reached an historical turning point in meeting long-standing immigration enforcement challenges. The question is no longer whether the government is willing and able to enforce the nation's immigration laws, but how enforcement resources and mandates can best be mobilized to control illegal immigration and ensure the integrity of the nation's immigration laws and traditions.

Recent acts of terrorism in Britain and Europe and the events of 9/11 in the United States have greatly influenced immigration, security, and integration policies in these countries. Yet many of the current practices surrounding these issues were developed decades ago, and are ill-suited to the dynamics of today's global economies and immigration patterns. At the core of much policy debate is the inherent paradox whereby immigrant populations are frequently perceived as posing a potential security threat yet bolster economies by providing an inexpensive workforce. Strict attention to border controls and immigration quotas has diverted focus away from perhaps the most significant dilemma: the integration of existing immigrant groups. Often restricted in their civil and political rights and targets of xenophobia, racial profiling, and discrimination, immigrants are unable or unwilling to integrate into the population. These factors breed distrust, disenfranchisement, and hatred-factors that potentially engender radicalization and can even threaten internal security. The contributors compare policies on these issues at three relational levels: between individual EU nations and the U.S., between the EU and U.S., and among EU nations. What emerges is a timely and critical examination of the variations and contradictions in policy at each level of interaction and how different agencies and different nations often work in opposition to each other with self-defeating results. While the contributors differ on courses of action, they offer fresh perspectives, some examining significant case studies and laying the groundwork for future debate on these crucial issues.

Few issues on the American political agenda are more complex or divisive than immigration. There is no shortage of problems with current policies and practices, from the difficulties and delays that confront many legal immigrants to the large number of illegal immigrants living in the country. Moreover, few issues touch as many areas of U.S. domestic life and foreign policy. Immigration is a matter of homeland security and international competitiveness, as well as a deeply human issue central to the lives of millions of individuals and families. It cuts to the heart of questions of citizenship and American identity and plays a large role in shaping both America's reality and its image in the world. Immigration's emergence as a foreign policy issue coincides with the increasing reach of globalization. Not only must countries today compete to attract and retain talented people from around the world, but the view of the United States as a place of unparalleled openness and opportunity is also crucial to the maintenance of American leadership. There is a consensus that current policy is not serving the United States well on any of these fronts. Yet agreement on reform has proved elusive. The goal of the Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy was to examine this complex issue and craft a nuanced strategy for reforming immigration policies and practices.

On both sides of the Atlantic, restrictive immigration policies have been framed as security imperatives since the 1990s. This trend accelerated in the aftermath of 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks in Europe. In Frontiers of Fear, Ariane Chebel d’Appollonia raises two central questions with profound consequences for national security and immigration policy: First, does the securitization of immigration issues actually contribute to the enhancement of internal security? Second, does the use of counterterrorist measures address such immigration issues as the increasing number of illegal immigrants, the resilience of ethnic tensions, and the emergence of homegrown radicalization? Chebel d’Appollonia questions the main assumptions that inform political agendas in the United States and throughout Europe, analyzing implementation and evaluating the effectiveness of policies in terms of their stated objectives. She argues that the new security-based immigration regime has proven ineffective in achieving its prescribed goals and even aggravated the problems it was supposed to solve: A security/insecurity cycle has been created that results in less security and less democracy. The excesses of securitization have harmed both immigration and counterterrorist policies and seriously damaged the delicate balance between security and respect for civil liberties.