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

Since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, U.S. immigrationand refugee policy has developed based on narrow and evolvingtheories of ‘national security’. Immigration reformlegislation, federal regulations, and administrative policychanges 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 HomelandSecurity (DHS), formally making immigration a homeland defenseconcern. Counterterror and immigration experts increasingly agree onwhat constitute effective and appropriate immigration policyreforms in light of the terrorist threat. Unfortunately, manyof the post-September 11 policy changes do little to advancepublic safety and violate the rights of refugees and asylumseekers. These include reductions in refugee admissions, thecriminal prosecution of asylum seekers, the blanket detentionof Haitians, and a safe third-country asylum agreement betweenthe United States and Canada. Other measures offend basic rightsand 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 developmentsbased on their impact on migrant rights and their efficacy ascounterterror measures. It argues for a more nuanced and rigoroussense of ‘national security’ in crafting refugeeand immigration policy.