Please respond to the Forum questions listed below. You are expected to give complete answers referring to what you have read in the “Lessons”(reading & resources). Reference to, or the use of critical thinking, analysis, what you have learned in previous courses, the media, and in your professional lives is also expected. Define the subject; make references to what you have read, what you have learned elsewhere, and then form a response.

Instructions: Your initial post should be at least 350 words. Please respond to a least 2 other students. Response should be a minimum of 150 words and include direct questions. When addressing the topic questions, you are to state the question followed by your response. Do this for each question posed.

1) Is current immigration policy seriously treated as a national security issue? How was it treated prior to 9/11? Finally, what are the challenges that the United States has in regards to securing both the US/Canada and US/Mexico borders?

2) Discuss Customs border authority and “border searches”, as they pertain to the fourth amendment rule.

Articles for weekly assignment:

Haddel, C. C. (2010). Border security: The role of the U. S. Border Patrol. CRS Report for Congress.

Kim, Y. (2009). Protecting the U.S. Perimeter: Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment. CRS Report for Congress.

Peters, M. E. (2015). Open trade, closed borders immigration in the era of globalization. World Politics, 67(1): 114-154.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (2017). CBP search authority.

Note this requirement – respond to at least two of your classmate’s posts.

Student # 1 Melvin

Is the current immigration policy seriously treated as a national security issue? How was it treated prior to 9/11?

Discuss Customs border authority and “border searches”, as they pertain to the fourth amendment rule.

The current U.S. immigration policy stands at the forefront of our national security governing the actions of people migrating into the U.S. This policy has in-fact been treated as a national security issue because the American public is fearful of yet another 9/11 attack and has concerns regarding homeland security primarily because of undocumented personnel and the Mexican border. The recent 9/11 assaults fundamentally shifted the migration and political field while placing much blame on the way immigration was previously handled via ground, air and sea scrutinizing how borders were being safe-guarded. Following the assaults, various reports concurred on the way that the different associations responsible for national security were not conveying appropriately.

Immigration reform has been publicized throughout the current President’s campaign with the intent to bring awareness to the American public. In the wake of 9/11, the “immigration policy has been viewed primarily through the lens of national security” (migrationpolicy.org). This issue has brought about the revision of numerous protection agencies under the Department of Homeland security and other agencies such as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). So far, I have never heard anything negative pertaining to the relationship between the U.S. and Canada as oppose to the US/Mexico problems that are broadcast each day in the media. Illegal immigration poses a threat to our national security. If undocumented immigrants can illegally pass through our borders, then terrorist can do the same. I am no fan of President Trump’s proposal to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico though at one time it seemed farfetched, more and more it is beginning to become a reality.

“The fourth amendment orders that a pursuit or seizure led by government operators must be sensible and that reasonable justification must help a warrant.” Basically, it protects the citizens of the United States against illegal search procedures. I do not see how this amendment p would pertain to immigration seeing as how illegal immigrants are not considered citizens of the United States.

References:

Chishti, M., & Bergeron, C. (2011, September 8). Post-9/11 Policies Dramatically Alter the U.S. Immigration Landscape. Retrieved September 9, 2017, fromhttps://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/post-911-policies-dramatically-alter-us-immigration-landscape

Kim, Y. (2009, June 29). Protecting the U.S. Perimeter: Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment. CRS Report for Congress.

Student # 2 Lewis

Currently the immigration policy is treated as a national security issue to contradict Andreas who stated “the policing of the U.S.-Mexican border has more to do with politics and the perception of border control than the actual control of what and who enters the United States.” The evidence is in the evolution of the US Boarder Patrol (USBP) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Prior to 9/11 the USBP was part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). These were funded and granted powers by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). USBP, was primarily in place to enforce immigration laws and arrests to illegal aliens and immigrants who broke immigration laws. Post 9/11, USBP along with the creation of ICE and CBP mission was altered to include the prevention, apprehension and detection of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). “In the wake of 9/11, the BP refocused its priorities to place greater emphasis on protecting against terrorist penetration” (Haddal). With regards to the challenges to security the northern and southern boarders is simple, too much boarder and not enough personnel. This is obviously an over simplification to the problem, which is securing the boarder(s). This is also rejecting/denying the root cause of the desire for illegal and/or terrorists to come to the united States which will be avoided in this week’s forum. With the vast boarder, approximately 6,000 miles, and seemingly unlimited wilderness along with varying climates and a limited budget for “eyes on” operations, it is nearly impossible to fully secure the boarder(s). Without a seemingly unlimited budget and vast amount of manpower to complete such a task, the boarder(s) will never be fully secured.

In this week’s lesson, the question was asked if civil liberties were worth forfeiting/loosing for the sake of security, the lesson stated yes, they are worth loosing; when in fact this is false. Benjamin Franklin stated, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” However, one must also consider the purpose of the federal government, that is to protect its citizens from threats both foreign and domestic. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Various). For the federal government to protect itself and its citizens (U.S. citizens), the government has the right to perform unwarranted searches of all inbound traffic of goods and personnel from outside the united States to accomplish its mission. Only unwarranted searches and seizures from within the united States applies to the Fourth Amendment.

References:

Haddal, Chad C. (2010). Border Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol. Specialist in Immigration Policy. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32562.pdf

Various. (1789). united States Constitution. Bill of Rights – Amendment IV

Franklin, Benjamin (1755). What Ben Franklin Really Said. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-real…