Presentation Topic: Security and U.S.
Immigration Policy (toward Latin America)
Robbie J. Totten
rtotten@ucla.edu
PLEASE DO NO CITE OR DISTRIBUTE
THESE SLIDES WITHOUT AUTHOR
PERMISSION
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Class Question:
 What comes to mind when you think, “Security and U.S.
Immigration Policy?”
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Broad Introductory Questions:
Is this (border security, unauthorized (“illegal”) immigration, terrorism) how we
typically think of security and U.S. immigration policy???
Is there more to the security/immigration story???
Introductory Perspectives
Two Very Different Viewpoints Regarding Security and U.S. Immigration Policy
What is going on here?
• Statue of Liberty Inscription--Emma Lazarus Poem:
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The
wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to
me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
 Nixon and Kissinger on if the U.S. should offer persecuted Jews in the Soviet
Union refuge in America:
 Kissinger stated privately that, “The emigration of Jews from the Soviet
Union is not an objective of American foreign policy.” “And if they put Jews
into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern.
Maybe a humanitarian concern.” Nixon responded to his remark by saying,
“I know. We can’t blow up the world because of it.” (Nixon Tapes, February
13, 1973)
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Introductory Definitions: Security/U.S. Immigration Policy
Big Distinction by How one Conceptualizes and
Understands “Security”
 U.S. Immigration Policy (Layman’s Terms): America’s decisions regarding
which (and on what terms) foreign citizens (both authorized and
unauthorized foreign nationals) get to enter/exit U.S. borders.
 National Security “refers to the requirement to maintain the survival of the
nation-state through the use of economic, military and political power and
the exercise of diplomacy.” (your standard IR textbook)
 Human Security (from IR textbook) “is people-centered and its focus is on
protecting individuals.” Puts forth that “the proper referent for security
should be the individual rather that the state.” (your standard IR textbook)
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Security and U.S. Immigration Policy:
Question to Guide Today’s Presentation:
 What are the security objectives that U.S. leaders have
historically attempted to reach with immigration policy?
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Outline of Presentation Today:
1. Why should we care about this question/topic?
2. Quick History of U.S. Immigration Policy
3. Security Objectives and U.S. Immigration Policy: 1.
Domestic Security; 2. Economic and Military; 3.
Foreign Policy
4. Relevance to U.S.-Latin American relations
5. Discussion/Examples of Security Policy Objectives and
U.S. Immigration Policy
6. Take-Away
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Why should we care about this question and the relationship
between security and U.S. Immigration Policy? (4 Primary
Reasons)
1.
Humanitarian Reasons
• Safety of citizens and immigrants
Strategic Reasons
2.
•
•
3.
Powerful geopolitical/security stakes w/ immigration
Over 200 foreign states send immigrants to the U.S.
Postwar Immigration 
• International migration has more than doubled in volume since 1975
• Legal immigration , from 2.5 million immigrants for the 1950-1959 decade to
10.3 million immigrants for the 2000-2009 decade
• 1/8 people in the U.S. born in another country; 1/5 people in the U.S. is the child
of an immigrant
• About 11-12 million unauthorized (“illegal”) immigrants in the U.S.
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Continued: Why should we care?
4.
•
•
•
•
Increased Policy Activity & Public Attention
Major federal immigration reform attempted in 2005-07 to revamp the
1965 system. Likely to be attempted again?
States (e.g., Alabama, Arizona) passing controversial laws such as making it
criminal for an immigrant to fail to carry documents
Large Marches throughout the U.S. over immigration (500,000 People in
a Los Angeles protest)
Is this one of the few policy area that motivates contemporary Americans?
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
(Very Simple) History of American Immigration Policy
 Colonial Period-1920s: (Mostly) “Open-Door” Immigration Policy
 Over 20 million immigrants came to America during the period
 1920s-1965: Restrictive Immigration Policy-Quota Laws
 The 1920s Quota Laws limited the number of immigrants admitted to the U.S. from any country to 2% of
the number of people from that nation who were living in the U.S. according to the 1890 census
 The restrictive effect of the legislation was immediate and sharp, as reflected in that the U.S. admitted 652k
immigrants in 1921, but only 8 years later, even before the Depression further slowed migration, the
country only admitted 158,598 immigrants
 1965-Present: Somewhere in-between: Much More Liberal than Quota
Laws but No Open-Door Policy
 The 1965 Immigration & Nationality Act abolished the quota system, vastly reopened the nation’s doors to
immigrants, and laid the framework upon which the U.S. immigration system still rests today
 As a result of the legislation, the number of immigrants who came to the U.S. doubled between 1965 and 1970
and then doubled again between 1970 and 1990
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
 The new system has also resulted in the source countries of immigration shifting from nations in Europe to ones in
Asia and Latin America, which has significantly changed the ethnic composition of the U.S. over the past 5 decades
Security Objectives Attempted by U.S.
Leaders with Immigration Policy
Domestic
Security
• Prevent (1) Crime, (2), Epidemics,
(3) Espionage, and (4) Terrorism
Economic
& Military
• Manipulate the (1) Size of and/or (2) Skills
within the U.S. Population through
Immigration to Assemble & Operate
Advanced Technologies & Weaponry, Build
Infrastructure & Fortification, Provide
Soldiers, and Secure/Settle Territory
Foreign
Policy
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
• (1) Please, (2) Harm, (3) Bargain with
Foreign States, and (to a lesser
extent) (4) Seize Foreign Assets and
Territory
Relevance to U.S.-Latin American
Relations & Beyond
 Obvious relevance: U.S. immigration policy toward other states
including those in Latin-America
 The security/strategic logic of immigration policy for nation-
states is similar, including those in Latin-America toward the U.S.
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Economic/Military Objectives and U.S. Immigration Policy: Overview
 Leaders concern over the economic/military power of their nation-states to ensure
competitiveness/security in the international system
 Economic/military power are closely related sources of power and security for a state
 Core building blocks of the economic/military strength of a state are related to the
size and skill of its labor force and population
 A large, efficient, and technologically advanced population has the capacity to
produce great wealth and a formidable military
 Immigrants can provide a state with:
1. Soldiers
2. People/workers to settle/secure territory and build fortifications/infrastructure
3. Scientists/specialists to build/operate technologies for economic
production/weaponry
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
ECONOMIC/MILITARY OBJECTIVE #1: INCREASE POPULATION TO Build
Infrastructure and Fortification, Provide Soldiers, and Secure/Settle Territory
 The Federal “Open-Door” Immigration Policy, 1776-1917/1921
 Fed. government placed few restrictions on immigration during the
period. Immigrants were largely welcome if they could make the journey
 Mass migration. Over 20 million immigrants arrived during the period
 Population surge boosted the material/military strength of the nation
(Totten 2008)
 Immigrants contributed as much as 42% of the country's gross physical
capital production by 1912. (Neal and Uselding, 1972)
 About 1/3 of U.S. federal army in the 1840s was composed of foreign-
born persons and the % of immigrants serving in many state militias is
estimated to have been even higher (Briggs, 2003)
 Large numbers of immigrants fought the Mexican and Civil Wars and
helped settle and secure the western frontier (America’s “shock troops.”)
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
ECONOMIC/MILITARY OBJECTIVE #1: INCREASE POPULATION FOR
GEOPOLITICAL/SECURITY PURPOSES
 Correspondence amongst leaders indicates they sought increased population for
geopolitical reasons (see esp. Totten, 2008). For example:
 George Washington privately wrote James Duane, who was then serving as an Indian
commissioner, that the Western states should “admit such emigrations…not only
from the several States of the Union but from Foreign Countries.” “ Measures of this
sort would not only obtain Peace from the Indians, but would, in my opinion, be the
means of preserving it.” (Washington to Lafayette, January 10, 1788)
 John Adams private comment on increasing American population (from immigration
and natural growth): “The Americans are, at this day, a great people, and are not to be
trifled with. Their numbers have increased fifty per cent since 1774. A people that
can multiply at this rate, amidst all the calamities of such a war of eight years, will, in
twenty years more, be too respectable to want friends. They might sell their
friendship, at this time, at a very high price to others, however lightly it may be
esteemed here.” (John Adams to Matthew Robinson, March 2, 1786.)
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
ECONOMIC AND MILITARY OBJECTIVE #2: IMPORT SKILLED LABOR TO
Assemble & Operate Advanced Technologies & Weaponry
 High-skilled refugees provide U.S. with skills useful for economically
and militarily competing in the international system
 High-skilled refugees provide the U.S. with numerous benefits,
including “increased research and development and economic activity,
knowledge flows and collaboration" and allow the country to gain
“scarce and unique sets of skills that are needed to overcome bottlenecks
in production or research” without the expense of training domestic
workers to acquire the skills. (Regets, 2001)
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
ECONOMIC AND MILITARY OBJECTIVE #2: IMPORT SKILLED
LABOR—EXAMPLE: DISPLACED PERSONS ACT OF 1948
 U.S. leaders incorporated labor preference categories (for workers with
specified skills) into the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, which was ostensibly
designed purely for humanitarian purposes (find homes for WWII refugees.)
 The Immigration Commission that helped devise the act openly/unabashedly
admitted to using a humanitarian instrument to strengthen the economy by
publicly declaring that it “advanced our foreign policy, strengthened our
NATO Allies, and improved our own domestic economy.” (United States Displaced
Person Commission, 1952)
 Private correspondence also indicates this economic intent:

For example, John J. McCloy, then U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, sent
the Commission confidential memorandum advising that the U.S. should not take
in "iron curtain refugees" unless they had "either special information or special
talents." "Frankly," he explained, "few of the defectors have been of much use to
us." He did, however, "strongly" and "persistently" encourage the U.S. to admit
German expellees because many of them were craftsmen and skilled laborers
who constituted "valuable manpower” during the Cold War. "Take as many into
the U.S. as you can get Congress to approve," he recommended.
(December/January 1951, FRUS)
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Foreign Policy Objective #1: Foster or Improve
Relationships with Other States
 U.S. immigration decisions can improve or worsen relations w/ a
foreign state
 An “open” immigration “invitation” from one state to another is an
intimate gesture in international relations
 U.S. leaders can signal to states that it wishes to please that it is
serious over their relationships by allowing their immigrants to
come to America
 Link between security and immigration policy esp. important from
a strategic perspective during times of high geopolitical threat/war
since allies are critical
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Immigration Policy Example of Pleasing Allies: A Main
Gate Law—The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
 Foreign policy lens allows for rethinking of major U.S. immigration policy
events
 For example: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
 Laid the infrastructure upon which our immigration system still rests
today
 Frequently understood as an ideological decision (the civil rights
movement)
 But ending the Quota Laws and creating a more inclusive immigration
policy was in line with Cold War foreign policy objectives
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Continued: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
 Public, Government, & Private Comments by Officials support Foreign Policy
Interpretation
 Government Debate Example: Secretary of State Dean Rusk: “What other peoples
think about us plays an important role in the achievement of our foreign policies.”
“More than a dozen foreign ministers have spoken to me in the last year alone, not
about the practicalities of immigration from their country to ours, but about the
principle which they interpret as discrimination against their particular countries.”
“I would think that it would be possible for the Congress to devise a policy that
would be good for us internally, and welcomed and respected by countries all over
the world.” (July 2, 1964, Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary,
88th Congress, 2nd Session )
 Private Comment: Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary
and a chief architect of the law, privately wrote Kennedy that an immigration law
was needed that “best suited to serve our national interest and the basic
objectives of our foreign policy.” (June 24, 1963)
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVE #2: PUNISH ADVERSARY STATES
 U.S. leaders have devised immigration policies to serve as a “discomfiting” (e.g.,
Teitelbaum, 1984), ideological, & even physical weapons against foreign states
1.
U.S. can allow or encourage immigration migration to it from a nation that prohibits or
discourages exit of their residents in order to embarrass or weaken (e.g, taking away
skilled immigrants) the foreign regime
2.
U.S. can rebuff a foreign nation by denying entrance to its immigrants in order to signal
that it disapproves of its policies or embarrass it in the global community
3.
U.S. can form policies that burden, disadvantage, or harm the immigrants of an enemy
nation to “attack” that state
4.
U.S. can admit immigrants to train them to return to their home country and attempt to
remove the regime in power
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Punishing Adversaries Example of Using Immigration to
Embarrass or Weaken a Foreign State: Cold War
Displaced Person/Refugee Policies
 U.S. permitted entrance to refugees from Communist countries to demonstrate the
bankruptcy of the Soviet system
 Approximately 97 percent of refugees permitted entrance during the 1971-1980
decade arrived from Communist countries, and although the Refugee Act of 1980
was designed to end preferential treatment of refugees, nearly 95 percent of the
refugees permitted entrance during the 1981-1990 decade again arrived from
Communist countries (Russell, 1995)
 Haiti/Cuba example
 A private National Security Memorandum stated that U.S. refuge policies were
designed to “encourage defection of all USSR nations and “key” Personnel from
satellite countries” to “inflict a psychological blow on communism” and, “though less
important…material loss to the Soviet Union” by depriving it of experts. (Quoted
in Zolberg, 2006)
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Punish Adversary Nations Examples
Continued : Training Refugees
 Training Refugees to Attack their Home State
 U.S. leaders have financed, supplied, and trained refugees
who fled from adversary nations to return to their home
states to attempt to remove their governments
 Archetypical example: the Bay of Pigs Invasion
 President Eisenhower instructed the CIA in 1959 to recruit
and train Cuban exiles residing in Miami and President
Kennedy on April 17, 1961 secretly ordered approximately
1,300 of them to amphibiously invade Cuba in an effort to
topple Castro’s government
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Punish Adversary Nations Examples—Miscellaneous Methods:
Mistreating Immigrants to Punish Adversary Nation
 A state can also punish or “get back” at an adversary nation by mistreating or limiting
the rights of its immigrants
 American officials have done this primarily when the nation has been at war through
repressive policies ostensibly designed to monitor the loyalty of immigrants
 Example: Japanese internment camps.
 John D. Dingell, a Democrat representative and described by peers as “normally a
responsible New Dealer” wrote a private letter to FDR that the U.S. could punish
Japan for mistreating American citizens by “the forceful detention or imprisonment
in a concentration camp of ten thousand alien Japanese in Hawaii….It would be
well to remind Japan that there are perhaps one hundred fifty thousand additional
alien Japanese in the United States who [can] be held in a reprisal reserve.”
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Punish Adversary Nations Example—Miscellaneous Methods: “Dumping
Unwanted Immigrants”: Britain & European Countries sending “Misfits”
to the Americas
 “Dumping” “Unwanted” Immigrants on a Foreign State
 A state can “punish” an enemy nation by sending immigrants to it who are
perceived as burdensome or dangerous or likely to incite conflict (.e.g., the poor,
sick, criminal)
 British and other European states repeatedly sent convicts, drunkards, insolvents,
and the sick to the colonies and later the states during the 17th-19th centuries
 America’s founders considered it grounds for independence from Britain.
Benjamin Franklin exclaimed, “Thou art called our MOTHER COUNTRY; but
what good Mother ever sent Thieves and Villains to accompany her Children,” and “We
do not ask Fish, but thou givest us Serpents, and worse than Serpents!” (April 11,
1751)
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVE #3: BARGAINING CHIP
 Immigration issues can be used by U.S. leaders as a bargaining chip
or as part of a larger trading package in its negotiations with foreign
states
 This use is likely to occur when one country restricts refugee
emigration that the U.S. seeks to promote, in which case American
leaders can link the refugee issue to other policy areas such as trade
or foreign aid in an attempt to achieve its policy goal
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVE #4: SEIZING ASSETS
AND TERRITORY
 U.S. leaders, primarily during the country’s first hundred years, have
used migration as an instrument to capture assets or territory
 They did this through the forced migration of residents (generating
“refugees”) so that property could be taken to fund war and by
permitting American settlers to move into foreign territory
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Foreign Policy Objective of Using Immigration to Seize Assets
Example--Creating Refugees to Seize Assets: British Loyalists
 American states passed laws permitting the confiscation/sale of property
belonging to loyalists
 For example, New York acquired approximately £4 million in loyalist property,
including live stock, farm implements, barn and cellar fixtures, grain, fruits, hay,
clothing, and books
 States did this to (1.) finance the Revolutionary War, (2.) reprove those who
remained loyal to the Crown, (3.) limit the resources available to those aiding
British regiments, (4.) discourage citizens from supporting the enemy, and (5.)
“punish” Britain
 George Washington ordered the confiscation of loyalist possessions because, he
asked, “Why should persons who are preying on the vitals of the country, be
suffered to stalk at large, whilst we know that they will do us every mischief in
their power?”
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Example of using ”Immigrants” to Seize Territory
 Colonial American and later U.S. leaders used migration as a form of low-
intensity conquest during the 17th-19th centuries by having settlers move into
territory belonging to foreign states
 Thomas Jefferson, when serving as Secretary of State under George Washington
said that, ”It will be the means of delivering to us peaceably what may otherwise
cost us a war.” (Jefferson to Washington, April 2, 1791)
 Example: Annexing Texas. U.S. “allowed” twenty thousand Americans to emigrate
during the 1820s/early 1830s into Texas, which was a Spanish and later a Mexican
possession during the period
 Secretary of State John Quincy Adams wrote in his diary that he did not intend to
use the military to conquer Texas in the short-term; instead, he was waiting for
the day when the “inhabitants” of Texas (American settlers) would “exercise their
primitive rights, and solicit a union with us.” (November 7, 1823)
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Domestic Security Objective #1: Prevent Epidemics
Part 1: Epidemics in World Historical Perspective
 Contagious disease is often transported from one sovereign entity (e.g., a
nation-state) to another sovereign entity through human migration so leaders
have a strong incentive to devise immigration policies protecting against
contagions
 Many examples exist through history of epidemics destroying civilizations and
militaries and abruptly altering the fate of governments and societies
1.
For example, European explorers introduced diseases in the New World that
between Columbus’s arrival in 1492 and the 18th century killed as many as 95%
of the North American Indians, contributing to the relative ease with which their
lands were taken by imperial powers
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Domestic Security Objective #1: Prevent Epidemics
Part 1 (Cont.): Epidemics in U.S. Historical Perspective
 17th – early 20th centuries: repeated deadly outbreaks of epidemic diseases
 E.G., Philadelphia lost 1/8th of its population to yellow fever in 1793
 The 1832, 1849, and 1866 cholera outbreaks killed over 200,000 Americans;
 Typhoid fever killed an estimated one million American lives from 1880-1920
 Mid-20th century:  in epidemics/contagious disease-related deaths in U.S. because
cures/vaccines & improved sanitation methods
 But epidemics remain a serious risk:
1. Approximately 170,000 Americans die each year from infectious diseases
2. Modern biological attacks by rogue groups/individuals (e.g., 2001 mail-based
anthrax attacks)
3. Recent outbreaks in developed nations (e.g., the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS) virus and the 2009 Swine Flu)
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
4. And it only takes one dangerous contagion…
Domestic Security Objective #1: Prevent Epidemics
Part 2: Epidemics and Nation-State/U.S. Security
 As the previous examples illustrate, epidemics pose security threats to a nation-
state in a number of ways. Most notably:
Economic/Military Power: epidemics can reduce the ability of a state to
project economic and military power in the international system
1.
•
•
Disrupt economic/military production
Kill troops
1.
Citizen Health: physical and psychological
2.
Foreign Affairs/War:
 Blame Game
 Power Shifts
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Domestic Security Objective #1: Prevent Epidemics
Part 3: Immigration Policies
 3 Methods through American History
1. Primary method: American officials from the colonial era through the
present day have devised laws that condition or disallow foreigners carrying
diseases perceived dangerous entrance to the country
2. Isolation & Quarantine
3. Presidential Power to Stop All Immigration to Protect Against a Contagion
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Domestic Security Objective #2: Prevent Crime, Drug
Smuggling, Espionage, and Terrorism. Part 1: Background
 Vast majority of immigrants who come to the U.S become law-abiding citizens
 BUT a small % of them are responsible for a few of the worst criminal, spying,
and terrorist acts in American history
 Such incidents have led leaders to form immigration policies to protect against
the entrance of malevolents
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Domestic Security Objective #2: Prevent Crime, Drug
Smuggling, Espionage, and Terrorism. Part 1: Definitions
 Crime is a socially constructed phenomenon that occurs when a person breaks the rules or
laws stipulated by a governing authority
 Many misfeant deeds are considered criminal by U.S. state/federal governments, such as
arson, burglary, corruption, extortion, homicide, motor vehicle theft, and the provision of
illicit services (e.g., gambling operations, protection rackets, loansharking, and prostitution)
and goods (e.g., illegal drugs like marijuana, pornography, and stolen guns/goods).
 Espionage refers to "the use of spies by a government to discover the military and political
secrets of other nations."
 Terrorism: A universally accepted definition of terrorism is debated, but it broadly entails
"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."
 Types of terrorism include armed attacks, arsons, assassinations, bombings (in places such as
markets, public transportation, stores, symbolic buildings), hostage-taking, & kidnappings.
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Domestic Security Objective #2: Prevent Crime (including Drug
Smuggling), Espionage, and Terrorism. Part 1: Background
 Crime is an expensive and deadly security problem for the U.S.
 2009: 13,500 murders, 805,000 aggravated assaults, 88,000 forcible rapes,
408,000 robberies, 2.2 million burglaries, 6.3 million larceny-thefts
 just organized crime costs U.S. taxpayer around $500 billion/year
 A portion of immigrants commit criminal acts
 DHS estimates that the foreign-born make up around 20% of the inmates in U.S.
prisons/jails & 57% of FBI most wanted fugitive murders in ‘09 were foreign-born
 Famous historical examples of immigrant crime in U.S. history (often parodied in
movies): Irish & Italian Mafias
 Many infamous criminals in U.S. history were immigrants/recent descendants of
immigrants: Al Capone, Sam Giancana, Joe "the Boss" Masseria, Charles "Lucky"
Luciano, Banjamin "Bugsy" Siegel, Vito Genovese, Joseph Colombo, Carlo
Gambino, Paul Castellano, John Gotti, Pablo Escobar
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Domestic Security Objective #2: Prevent Crime, Espionage, and Terrorism. Part 1:
Definitions and Historical Background
 Espionage is an ancient trade so dubbed the "second oldest profession" of humankind
 Modern era: spying has "become one of the twentieth century's biggest growth industries,
expanding so rapidly as to be virtually out of control.”
 Britain created 1st nation-state intelligence agency in 1909, Germany in 1913, Russia in
1917, France in 1935, U.S. in 1947, and today, even most third world countries have them
 CIA is thought to spend at least $30 billion/yr & employ 150,000 people
 U.S. has contended with espionage from its start: Britain used loyalists disguised as
"Americans" to gather intelligence to assist w/ attacks on Washington's army during the
Revolutionary War
 Espionage against the U.S. has increased over the past century w/ its international rise
(numerous Cold War examples)
 F.B.I. lists espionage as its second priority behind only terrorism
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Domestic Security Objective #2: Prevent Crime (including Drug Smuggling),
Espionage, and Terrorism. Part 1: Definitions and Historical Background
 Terrorism by foreign nationals has been a security problem for the U.S. since its founding
 Revolutionary War: Britain spread smallpox amongst George Washington's army?
 Terrorism by foreign nationals remained prevalent in the U.S. during the 19th/early 20th
centuries
 Anarchist Groups—consisting primarily of immigrants espousing anti-statist policies &
turning to bombings/assassinations
 President McKinley assassination
 Terrorism by foreign nationals continues to pose a risk for the U.S. in recent decades
 Most notably, September 11th suicide bombers illustrated the destruction that just a few
terrorists “posing” as immigrants can generate
 Terrorism increasing in quantity/devastation in recent yrs?
 180 worldwide suicide attacks occurred per yr during the 2001-2005 period, up from just
16 such attacks on average per yr for the 1991-2000 period
 Many analysts fear that unlike earlier periods terrorists may now be able to cause
widespread destruction by obtaining and using weapons of mass destruction
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Domestic Security Objective #2: Prevent Crime, Drug Smuggling,
Espionage, and Terrorism. Part 2: Security Risks
 Crime, espionage, and terrorism endanger U.S. security in a number of ways,
primarily:
1. Citizen Health: Physical & Psychological
2. Economic/Material Strength: detract from resources that can be used for
protection/competing in the international system
3. Military and Police Strength: limit the ability of U.S. military/police forces to
protect citizens
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Domestic Security Objective #2: Prevent Crime, Drug Smuggling,
Espionage, and Terrorism. Part 3: Immigration Policies
 Two Main Immigration Policy Methods:
1.
Primary Method: Stipulations within Laws Preventing the Entrance of
Criminals, Spies, and Terrorists
2.
Other Method: Deportation
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten
Take-Away:
 Leaders have factored (& at times cold-heartedly) security objectives into
American immigration policy for three centuries so they will likely continue to do
so in the future
 Important to consider all security areas (not just U.S.-Mexico border,
unauthorized immigration, and terrorism)
 Important to consider security of citizens and immigrants
 Be mindful of security/xenophobia connection: sort out fact from fiction
 Apply security logic of U.S. immigration policy to Latin American nation’s
immigration policies (Research paper opportunity?)
© 2012 Robbie J. Totten