Immigrants and Counterterrorism Policy: a Comparative Study of the United States and Britain
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IMMIGRANTS AND COUNTERTERRORISM POLICY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE UNITED STATES AND BRITAIN A dissertation presented by David Michael Smith to The Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science Northeastern University Boston, MA April 2013 1 IMMIGRANTS AND COUNTERTERRORISM POLICY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE UNITED STATES AND BRITAIN by David Michael Smith ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate School of Social Sciences and Humanities of Northeastern University April 2013 2 Abstract This project examines the political mechanisms through which foreign nationals are perceived as security threats and, as a consequence, disproportionately targeted by counterterrorism policies. Evidence suggests that domestic security strategies that unduly discriminate against non-citizens or national minorities are counterproductive; such strategies lead to a loss of state legitimacy, they complicate the gathering of intelligence, and they serve as a potential source of radicalization. At the same time, discriminatory counterterrorism policies represent a significant break from liberal democratic ideals by legitimizing unfair treatment of targeted groups. If discriminatory counterterrorism policies are counterproductive and undemocratic, why do policymakers support such strategies in the first place? By what means do these types of policies and related administrative measures gain traction in the political system? How do these measures operate in practice, and what accounts for variations in their implementation over time? To answer these questions, a policy process model is used that distinguishes between the problem definition and agenda setting, policy formulation and legitimation, and policy implementation phases of policymaking. The American government’s handling of the First Red Scare (1919-1920), the American response to 9/11, and the British response to 9/11 are examined to provide a comparative perspective on these issues. Policy outputs across these three cases were remarkably similar. The rights of non- citizens were curtailed to a much greater extent than were the rights of citizens. These similarities are attributed to the ways in which notions of national identity influence problem definition and policy legitimation. In particular, concepts that were prevalent in nationalist 3 narratives about the Other were incorporated into dominant policy narratives about terrorism. The nationalist Other became indistinguishable from the terrorist Other, thereby contributing to the translation of group-neutral policies into a group-specific practice of counterterrorism. The greatest variation, within and between cases, was observed in the implementation of counterterrorism policy. Each instance of implementation represented a unique trajectory, and both American cases displayed a much more vigorous and public set of counterterrorism activities than the British case. These differences are traced to variations in other institutional (domestic and international) and political variables that were found to be influential in each case. 4 Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the members of my dissertation committee. They have not only helped to improve the quality of this dissertation, they have been indispensable sources of inspiration and support. I am incredibly thankful for the time Professor Amílcar Barreto has devoted as committee chair. I truly appreciate his guidance and support throughout this entire process, from the countless hours spent helping me develop a robust research proposal to the myriad discussions we have had on everything from nationalism to comparative politics, academia, travel, food and family. His breadth of knowledge has been invaluable for my own research and his enthusiasm has been inspiring for me as a young scholar. I am indebted to Professor David Rochefort for the substantial time he has spent working with me on this project. This dissertation would have been of much less quality if it were not for his thoughtful feedback and direction. He has helped me to become a better writer and a better scholar, and he has been a terrific role model. For this I am grateful. I would also like to thank Professor David Schmitt for his continued support throughout my graduate career, including his guidance as a member of my dissertation committee. He has challenged me to think critically about the policy implications of my work, and he has played an essential role in my development as a scholar. I would be remiss if I did not express my gratitude for the mentorship and friendship of Professor Thomas Vicino. He is always willing to meet for a chat and his advice on research and academia has been invaluable. I wish him all the best. Finally, this project would not have been possible without the everlasting love and support of my family. I am incredibly fortunate to have them in my life. 5 Table of Contents Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………………. 6 Chapter 1: Immigrants and Counterterrorism ………………………………………………. 7 Chapter 2: National Identity and the Analysis of Counterterrorism Policy ……………… 24 Chapter 3: Foreign Radicals and Government Raids: The First Red Scare …………….... 59 Chapter 4: Zeroing in on the Muslim Other: The U.S. Counterterrorism ………………... 97 Response to 9/11 Chapter 5: Focusing on International Terrorists: The British Counterterrorism ……… 130 Response to 9/11 Chapter 6: Understanding the Counterterrorism/Immigration Nexus ………………….. 179 Chapter 7: Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………. 226 Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………………. 243 6 Chapter 1 Immigrants and Counterterrorism A deep sense of vulnerability permeated American society in the wake of Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. This was one of the most destructive attacks ever to occur in the United States, amounting to 2,402 Americans killed and over 1,000 wounded. Japan’s success in other battles throughout the Pacific during this period was a sign that the United States faced a significant threat for some time to come. Perceptions of this external threat transformed into a public hysteria about a “fifth column” working to undermine national security from within. Prominent public officials, the press, and patriotic groups promoted the notion that Japanese- Americans were a threat to American national security. This hysteria culminated in the internment of 120,000 people of Japanese decent. A majority were American citizens. Their internment was based on suspicions of disloyalty simply because of their ethnic background. Not a single act of espionage or sabotage had been committed. Internees were not charged with any crime, their cases were not considered on an individual basis, nor were they given any legal recourse to challenge their detention.1 The internment of Japanese-Americans exemplifies the vulnerable status of immigrants and national minorities during times of severe insecurity. However, the internment of individuals based on race, ethnicity, religion, or ideology has not been limited to the United States. Many countries around the world, including Britain,2 have interned individuals during wartime based 1 For an official and detailed look at the politics behind Japanese-American internment, including Executive Order 9066 authorizing internment in general, see Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, 1982. 2 Nearly 2,000 Nazi sympathizers, all British citizens, were interned during World War II (Simpson, 1992: 1). 176 Iraqis and other Arabs thought to be security threats were detained during the first Gulf War 7 on their suspected sympathies rather than any overt threatening behavior (Myers et al. 2011). The harsh treatment of suspect groups during times of war is well known. Yet similar actions have also been taken during other times of insecurity. The aftermath of a terrorist attack is a prominent example. Responses to terrorism often involve a disproportionate exercise of state power towards marginalized groups. Ironically, counterterrorism strategies that target internal minorities may actually undermine efforts to enhance national security. The integration of immigrants and national minorities diminishes the likelihood of domestic terrorist attacks (Chebel d'Appollonia & Reich 2008a), yet policies that summarily treat such groups as threats often hinder this process. Therefore integration outcomes should be a vital consideration of any counterterrorism policy. While citizens and non-citizens alike can present a security danger, state responses must be particularly sensitive to their effects on immigrant populations because of an increased susceptibility to alienation. Efforts that do not consider the potential for alienation of immigrants will likely fall short of adequately addressing any threat there may be (Chebel d'Appollonia & Reich 2008b; O'Duffy 2008). Alienated individuals are more likely to become radicalized and participate in contentious political activities as a result of an ambivalent or even hostile identification with their state. For various reasons they may reject their minority status and culture; yet at the same time they do not fully accept or become embraced by the majority culture (Awan 2008). This project will evaluate the political mechanisms through which non-citizens