Immigration and National Security Policies

by Krista Zimmerman

Several months ago, Mennonite Church USA wrote a letter to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sharing concerns about continued efforts to militarize the U.S./Mexico border. The letter highlighted the distress experienced by separated communities and rising numbers of migrant deaths.

The Department’s response focused primarily on perceived security threats. “[The] mission,” it wrote, “is to promote border security strategies that protect against and prevent terrorist attacks and other transnational crimes.”

The administration is not alone in harboring fears about terrorism and the border. Most federal lawmakers believe fortifying the U.S./Mexico border will help secure the United States from those who wish to inflict harm. At a potential price tag of $49 billion for 700 miles, they see barriers as a reasonable response to security concerns associated with immigration.

But many border communities and lawmakers see the issue differently. They believe physical barriers are, if nothing else, ineffective. “You show me a 50-foot wall and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder,” said Arizona governor Janet Napolitano. In other words, migrants determined to reach the United States are unlikely to be turned back by barriers and harsh environments.

Governor Napolitano’s conclusions were supported by young men I met on a recent trip to Mexico. During their attempt to cross the border into the United States, they had experienced arrest, deportation, injury and the death of traveling companions. They were willing to try again.

And if migrants are undeterred by border fencing and difficult terrain, would-be terrorists are not likely to be deterred either.

To truly address the security concerns inherent in human migration, the United States needs to do at least two things more effective than erecting a barrier. One of these things will be difficult and feel intangible; the other will be relatively simple. Both will require less fear and more trust.

First, we need to take seriously the existence of economic disparity and disenfranchisement around the world.

The roots of international terrorism and economic migration in the Americas are distinct and complex issues. But both would be better addressed by U.S. policies that focus not on fear and narrowly-conceived self interests but on multilateral problem solving, peacebuilding and the common good. It will take a long time to change conditions, but success will mean millions of additional people with the ability to earn a living and find hope in their countries of origin.

We also need to treat would-be employees and separated family members with dignity and allow them to enter and leave through attainable legal channels. To quote Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio’s 2006 congressional testimony, “national security is not just about keeping those who harm us out of our country, but about keeping those who help us in and allowing others who want to help us to enter.”

Most immigrants would prefer to immigrate through official channels, even when doing so involves background checks and filling out paperwork. But outdated quotas and immigration laws make it more difficult for many people to come here legally than to enter without inspection. These policies have resulted in millions of unidentified residents resistant to community policing efforts.When we provide real immigration avenues for people with valid reasons to be here, federal law enforcement officials will be able to focus on serious threats and find ways to engage more residents of the United States in their efforts.