BY HAFTU GEBREZGABIHER
According to historical documents Migration of people is a phenomenon as old as human history. Ethiopia has also a long history of welcoming migrants and giving haven at times of adversity.
It still provides safe shelter to refugees from more than 20 countries. On the other hand, its citizens also live as migrants in different countries. While many of the migrants keep on returning home many others also still stay in the county of their destination as expatriates.
Though migration is not sought as a major means of livelihood for people, there are still positive sides to the people and their countries of origin after the refugees or migrants are safely resettled there. Here the policies of the countries in handling refugees can be taken as a determinant factor in enhancing the fate of the refugees, the host country as well as the countries of origin.
As a matter of economic and political advantage, developed countries like Europe and America are the highly preferred destinations by refugees. Yet the policies of these countries also affect the situation of migrants.
Following the results of the November 8, 2016 election came as a surprise to many. Former President Donald Trump was an “unorthodox” contender and not even the traditional leadership of the Republican party was convinced of his candidacy. Promising to “make America great again”, he presented himself as “anti-Obama, anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim, and anti-globalization”, according to the piece published by the Global Affairs Journal.
He took office on January 20, 2017, claiming that, ‘that day’ would be remembered as the one on which power was given back to the American people.
According to the securitization of immigration in the United States of America (U.S.), through the analysis of the National Security Strategies (NSS) published between 2002 and 2017, a discursive analysis of each NSS documents shed some light on how immigration and immigration-related issues emerged, were removed or were prioritized in the security agenda, and how they were framed (or not) as threats. Different contexts in which these documents were published were also taken into consideration, including major crisis or “shocks,” as well as political or institutional changes.
It also considered shifts in the conception of American identity, and the prevailing public opinion on immigration. The main findings demonstrate that the securitization of immigration should be understood as a dynamic process that depends on a variety of factors that change over time.
The Trump Administration published its first NSS in December 2017, proclaiming the objective of putting “America first’’. Immigration appears prominently in the document, whose first chapter is heavily focused on homeland security and the threats posed by immigrants (documented and undocumented) in various ways. In later chapters, immigration-related issues also appear linked to other elements of national security. In this sense, the 2017 NSS is a case of prioritization of immigration in the security agenda of the U.S.
George W. Bush, who came to power after an extremely contested election, having lost the popular vote and amid a recount process in Florida, he won the presidency after a “highly controversial 5–4 Supreme Court decision in his favour”. The terrorist attacks of 9/11, 2001, provided him with the “opportunity to galvanize a divided nation [… giving] him a purpose, identity, legitimacy and in time legacy”. His presidency ended up being a wartime one, conditioning domestic and foreign policy in many ways.
During his tenure, two NSS were published in 2002 and 2006. The War on Terror and the export of American values laid the foundation for both documents. The president’s opening letter in the 2006 NSS states it bluntly: “America is at war.
This is a wartime national security strategy”. As such, the 2002 and 2006 NSS focus extensively on the characteristics of the international system, the main threats posed by traditional and non-traditional actors, and the role of the U.S. as a leader towards a freer, fairer, more democratic world.
There is no direct mention of immigration in the 2002 NSS and only one tangential reference in the 2006 NSS. Considering immigration had been consistently included in all of Bill Clinton’s NSS from 1994 to 2000, the exclusion made by the Bush Administration is a case of removal of an issue from a security agenda.
In contrast to Bush, Barack Obama came to office in January 2009 after a landslide victory in the 2008 elections. The stagnation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the severe economic recession that erupted in 2008 helped his election and the popular demand for a new kind of leadership.
Likewise, Democrats won significant majorities in both chambers of Congress, also underlining Obama’s presidency as a “new beginning”. The honeymoon, however, would be over after the midterm elections in 2010, when Democrats lost the majority at the Senate, and in later elections, after Republicans regained dominance in both chambers. The remainder of Obama’s tenure was marked by confrontation with Congress and an increasing partisan divide.
In his inaugural address, Obama stated that the nation was “in the midst of a crisis” that demanded to “begin again the work of remaking America”. This quest for renewal became the foundation of both NSS published during his tenure in 2010 and 2015. While there is some continuity from Bush’s to Obama’s NSS in terms of American values and interests, one of the principal differences is the reintroduction of immigration as a security issue. This is mainly evident in the 2010 NSS, where immigration and immigration-related issues are referenced several times.
Although the matter is much diminished in the NSS of 2015, it is still present as a security priority. According to Eriksson and Noreen’s model, then, the 2010 and 2015 NSS are cases of appearance and (de)prioritization, respectively. In both documents, immigration is framed as a positive trait of American society but strongly associated with border security and the rule of law.
“President Joe Biden understands the pain felt by every family across the U.S. that has had a loved one removed from the country, including under the Obama-Biden Administration, and he believes we must do better to uphold our laws humanely and preserve the dignity of immigrant families, refugees, and asylum-seekers.” (Global Affairs Journal)
The Ethiopian Herald March 24/2021
