Recent acts of terrorism in Britain and Europe and the events of 9/11 in the United States have greatly influenced immigration, security, and integration policies in these countries. Yet many of the current practices surrounding these issues were developed decades ago, and are ill-suited to the dynamics of today's global economies and immigration patterns. At the core of much policy debate is the inherent paradox whereby immigrant populations are frequently perceived as posing a potential security threat yet bolster economies by providing an inexpensive workforce. Strict attention to border controls and immigration quotas has diverted focus away from perhaps the most significant dilemma: the integration of existing immigrant groups. Often restricted in their civil and political rights and targets of xenophobia, racial profiling, and discrimination, immigrants are unable or unwilling to integrate into the population. These factors breed distrust, disenfranchisement, and hatred-factors that potentially engender radicalization and can even threaten internal security.The contributors compare policies on these issues at three relational levels: between individual EU nations and the U.S., between the EU and U.S., and among EU nations. What emerges is a timely and critical examination of the variations and contradictions in policy at each level of interaction and how different agencies and different nations often work in opposition to each other with self-defeating results. While the contributors differ on courses of action, they offer fresh perspectives, some examining significant case studies and laying the groundwork for future debate on these crucial issues.

Recent acts of terrorism in Britain and Europe and the events of 9/11 in the United States have greatly influenced immigration, security, and integration policies in these countries. Yet many of the current practices surrounding these issues were developed decades ago, and are ill-suited to the dynamics of today's global economies and immigration patterns. At the core of much policy debate is the inherent paradox whereby immigrant populations are frequently perceived as posing a potential security threat yet bolster economies by providing an inexpensive workforce. Strict attention to border controls and immigration quotas has diverted focus away from perhaps the most significant dilemma: the integration of existing immigrant groups. Often restricted in their civil and political rights and targets of xenophobia, racial profiling, and discrimination, immigrants are unable or unwilling to integrate into the population. These factors breed distrust, disenfranchisement, and hatred-factors that potentially engender radicalization and can even threaten internal security.The contributors compare policies on these issues at three relational levels: between individual EU nations and the U.S., between the EU and U.S., and among EU nations. What emerges is a timely and critical examination of the variations and contradictions in policy at each level of interaction and how different agencies and different nations often work in opposition to each other with self-defeating results. While the contributors differ on courses of action, they offer fresh perspectives, some examining significant case studies and laying the groundwork for future debate on these crucial issues.

On both sides of the Atlantic, restrictive immigration policies have been framed as security imperatives since the 1990s. This trend accelerated in the aftermath of 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks in Europe. In Frontiers of Fear, Ariane Chebel d'Appollonia raises two central questions with profound consequences for national security and immigration policy: First, does the securitization of immigration issues actually contribute to the enhancement of internal security? Second, does the use of counterterrorist measures address such immigration issues as the increasing number of illegal immigrants, the resilience of ethnic tensions, and the emergence of homegrown radicalization? Chebel d'Appollonia questions the main assumptions that inform political agendas in the United States and throughout Europe, analyzing implementation and evaluating the effectiveness of policies in terms of their stated objectives. She argues that the new security-based immigration regime has proven ineffective in achieving its prescribed goals and even aggravated the problems it was supposed to solve: A security/insecurity cycle has been created that results in less security and less democracy. The excesses of securitization have harmed both immigration and counterterrorist policies and seriously damaged the delicate balance between security and respect for civil liberties.

The story of West Indian immigrants to the United States is generally considered to be a great success. Mary Waters, however, tells a very different story. She finds that the values that gain first-generation immigrants initial success--a willingness to work hard, a lack of attention to racism, a desire for education, an incentive to save--are undermined by the realities of life and race relations in the United States. Contrary to long-held beliefs, Waters finds, those who resist Americanization are most likely to succeed economically, especially in the second generation.

The concept of security has traditionally referred to the status of sovereign states in a closed international system. In this system the state is assumed to be both the object of security and the primary provider of security. Threats to the state's security are understood as threats to its political autonomy in the system. The major international institutions that emerged after the Second World War were built around this idea. When the founders of the United Nations spoke of collective security, they were referring primarily to state security and to the coordinated system that would be necessary in order to avoid the 'scourge of war'. But today, a wide range of security threats, both new and traditional, confront Europe, or at least as some would say.

The course of events since the implementation of NAFTA has had unexpected elements with significant impacts on North American integration. First has been the rise of China as a larger source of imports and production partner than Mexico. Second has been the rise of security concerns since September 11, 2001. The result has been much stronger integration between Canada and the US than with Mexico. Migration issues are now linked with security, which has risen to a top priority in the international agenda. While liberalization has furnished strong economic incentives for integration, it has not provided a sufficient guide for the political process, which requires leadership and appropriate institutions to coordinate and regulate the special interest groups. A coherent and effective North American integration would be a valuable asset in the context of global integration and competition, yet the issues involved are quite complex and varied. North American Integration: An Institutional Void in Migration, Security and Development examines the current state of North American integration. Editors Gaspare M. Genna and David A. Mayer-Foulkes gather an international group of experts to give a broad, coherent picture of the current, multifaceted process of integration, and find that institutional development is an essential component. Divided into three sections, the book: - Discuss the determinants of integration and shows that the institutional characteristics of the three countries, including democracy and basic rights, are the most important. - Provides examples of institutional building in contexts for which institutions are lacking, specifically labor, migration and health issues. - Examines issues such as overall security arrangements, trade, drug related violence, energy, and the continuing wage gap among the countries, which have an important bearing on integration.

This thesis will add to emerging discussion in this country on immigrant integration and tie this issue to national security. Long after the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) processes their paperwork, many immigrants may be left struggling with the issue of identity. Some may resolve these issues and become thoroughly integrated Americans who weave their own cultural traditions into an American way of life. Others might question, for example, whether their sense of duty as a Muslim outweighs their sense of duty as an American, especially when the United States is conducting the "War on Terror" in two Muslim countries simultaneously while American television highlights any mistreatment of Muslims by U.S. soldiers (e.g., Abu Ghraib). It is this latter group that may be most vulnerable to radicalization. An immigrant integration strategy that provides a pathway for immigrants to invest themselves in American society makes sense from a policy perspective, if the end result is a feeling of pride and belonging that would make attacking the United States similar to harming one's own self. This thesis offers a comparative study of the Dutch and Canadian integration models, which reflect vastly different policies. Both offer lessons learned and possible strategy attributes for U.S. policymakers' consideration.