border security of the southern parts of both the us and the european union

BORDER SECURITY OF THE SOUTHERN PARTS OF US THE EUROPEAN UNION

Border Security of the Southern Parts of US the European Union

By [Student’s Name]

[Professor’s Name]

[Course Name]

[City, State]

[Date of Submission]


Introduction

The situation of security along the United States -Mexico border without a doubt ranks

as one of the most extremely charged subjects of public debate and discussion in both the

United States and Mexico for the past several years. Concerns regarding potential threats

posed by those entering the United States illegally, global terrorism, and fears that

skyrocketing hostility in Mexico might extended into the United States have led to remarkable

policy changes and important new investments by the United States to put measure into place

to protect the border1. Debates on border security cannot be completely disentangled from or

effectively attended to in isolation from other policy fields such as trade and the environment.

The promise of increased commerce and free trade among the United States and Mexico has

never been stronger, but ironically, fears about border security have also slowed economic

incorporation and had a discordant consequence on border societies.

Discussion

Addressing the intricate interplay involving prosperity and security at the border is

further made difficult by the perplexing assortment of overlying networks of local agencies

state and federal, given the responsibility of keeping the border area and the two countries

safe. Different policies such as the United States’ war on global terrorism; free trade accords

such as NAFTA and the imminent Trans-Pacific Partnership; United States’ immigration

strategy; the Mexican federal government’s policy to deal with organized crime; the Merida

Initiative; police and judicial organization reform in Mexico; a swiftly shifting governmental

1 Bender, S. (2012). Run for the border: Vice and virtue in U.S.-Mexico border crossings.

New York: New York University Press.


architecture; building cross-border and interagency alliance and trust; trade facilitation and

border management all take place in some fashion at the border sometimes efficiently and

effectively, and in other cases very inefficiently. All this has taken place in a situation in

which United States-Mexico mutual relations have turned out to be both more mutual and

more contentious at the same time.

For the duration of the months and years subsequent the 9/11 terrorist attacks, United

States extensive and reasonably porous and unprotected borders, predominantly the United

States-Mexico Border was drawn intensely into the state conversation about national security.

Border security became part of the general scrutiny and rethinking of United States national

security susceptibilities, which included transportation systems and other vital infrastructure

security. Ironically, the 9/11 terrorists did not go into the United States over the southern or

northern border but rather entered legally on immigrant and student visas. Nonetheless, fears

that united state borders could be susceptible to terrorist incursions have led to a number of

significant policy resolutions.

Major reinforcement of the border with supplementary staff, infrastructure, and

equipment, to make the entrance more difficult became the most important way policy-makers

sought after to address apparent border vulnerabilities. Along the way, these fears were

conflated with an increasing call for limiting immigration policy, and the proposed sealing of

the border to deny entry to undocumented migrants, criminals and to bring to an end the

exploding violence in Mexico from crossing into the United States2. Regardless of these

2 NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Security and Cross/Border Cooperation in the EU,

the Black Sea Region and Southern Caucasus, Ergun, A., Isaxanlı, H., & IOS Press. (2013).

Security and cross-border cooperation in the EU, the Black Sea Region and Southern


concerns, a variety of public announcements, such as speeches, testimony, among others, on

the part of federal government officials in different agencies state a common subject: no

considerable terrorist risk to the United States has turned up in Mexico nor infiltrated the

United States-Mexico border since the year two thousand and one.

The president of the United States, in a bid to secure the country’s borders, has doubled

the number of Border Patrol agents subsequently making the security in the border as strong

as it had never been before. More work, however is to be done as the President’s actions gives

law enforcement the tools they need to make the communities safer from crime. And by

improving the country’s infrastructure and technology, the President’s proposal continues to

reinforce the United States ability to eliminate criminals and detain and take legal action on

threats to the national security.

Policies to strengthen border security and infrastructure have also been put into place so

as to fortify and improve infrastructure at ports of entry, facilitate public-private partnerships

meant at realizing an increase in investment in foreign visitor processing, and persists

supporting the utilization of technologies that assist in securing the maritime borders and land

of the United States. Additional policies to Combat transnational crime have been employed

that have led to the creation of new criminal penalties devoted to fighting transnational

criminal organizations that smuggle people and that traffic in drugs, weapons, and money

across the borders. It also expands the extent of current law to permit for the confiscation3.

Caucasus. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

3 Romero, F. (2008). Hyperborder: The contemporary U.S.-Mexico border and its future.

New York: Princeton Architectural Press.


Through this approach, the United States will strengthen its efforts to deny criminal

organizations, including those with their operations along the Southwest border, of their

infrastructure and profits.

The United States has also improved partnerships with border communities and law

enforcement in order to expand its ability to work with its cross-border law enforcement

partners. The people’s cooperation and trust are key to successful law enforcement. To this

end, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has established border

community liaisons along the Southern and Northern borders to develop collaboration and

communication with border communities, increase funding to tribal government partners to

decrease illegal activity on tribal lands, and fortify training on civil liberties and civil rights

for Department of Homeland Security immigration officers.

Crack down on criminal networks engaging in visa and passport fraud and human

smuggling has also been a vital strategy in securing the United States borders. The creation of

hard-hitting criminal penalties for trafficking in passports and immigration documents and

plots to deceive, including those who prey on vulnerable immigrants through notary's scam,

has been implemented. There has also been an increase in the strengthening of penalties to

combat human smuggling rings.

For the first time, Department of Homeland Security unmanned aerial capabilities now

covers the entire Southwest border, from California to Texas, providing significant above

ground surveillance support to personnel on the ground. Department of Homeland Security

has also accomplished six hundred and forty-nine miles of fencing out of nearly six hundred

and fifty-two miles intended to be fenced4. Immigration of the Customs and Enforcement

4 In Gerdes, L. I. (2014). Should the US close its borders?


(ICE), the arm of Department of Homeland Security responsible for immigration-related

investigations, has increased the number of Federal agents dispatched on the Southwest

border. These supplementary personnel are working in conjunction with the Department of

Justice (DOJ) to discover, interrupt, and take apart criminal organizations, to facilitate

collaboration between the Mexican and the United States law enforcement authorities on

enforcement and investigations operations, and to track down and prevent cartel violence and

fewer people are attempting to cross our borders illegally.

In the Twenty-First Century Initiative of the border, the United States by making

succinct collaboration with the Mexican Government to advance harmonization in financing,

building, planning, and operating bi-national infrastructure; to improve cross-border business

and ties while managing common threats of both countries; and to augment law enforcement

collaboration to disrupt criminal flows and improve public security.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has formed the Office of the Non-Governmental

Organization in Liaison with the Commissioner’s Office, which works directly with CBP to

train the traveling stakeholders and public. Moreover, CBP executed a national Border

Community Liaison Program in all of the twenty Border Patrol Sectors and the Border Patrol

Academy for the society to be trained more about the Border Patrol. These liaisons center

principally on outreach with community groups and help law enforcement understand the

concerns and views of people living in border towns.

The ability to move freely within the European Union by its citizens is an essential right

guaranteed by the Treaties. It is realized through the area of freedom, justice and security

without internal borders. Lifting internal borders necessitates fortified management of the


Union’s external borders as well as controlled entry and residence of non-European Union

nationals, including through a common immigration and asylum policy5.

The notion of free movement of individuals was brought about by the signing of the

Schengen Agreement in the year nineteen-eighty-five and the consequent Schengen

Convention in the year nineteen ninety, which commenced the elimination of border controls

among participating countries. Being part of the European Union legal and institutional

structure, Schengen cooperation has progressively been expanded to include most European

Union Member States, as well as some non- European Union countries.

The Mediterranean Sea, however, has long been a key avenue for smugglers of human

beings, from sub-Saharan Africans who pass through North Africa and North Africans, into

the European Union’s borderless “Schengen area.” With the descend of Tunisian Dictator

Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and the armed uprising in opposition to Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi in

Libya, the problem on the European Union’s southern maritime borders in early two thousand

and eleven seemed to justify the European Union’s external border control agency, Frontex,

officials’ reasoning.

According to Frontex and High UN Commissioner of the Refugees, the number of

migrants out of Tunisia and Libya to the Italian island surely increased and reached an

astonishing forty-one thousand by June. Through Operation Hermes, which commenced in

response to the crisis in the increase of refugees from Tunisia and Libya, Frontex acquired

5 European Commission. (2006). Communication from the Commission to the Council:

Reinforcing the management of the European Union's Southern Maritime Borders.

Luxembourg: EUR-OP.


support from fourteen member states in the form of sea vessels aircraft, technical personnel

and surveillance equipment. Its region of operation covered the whole southern coast of Italy.

Moreover, the surrounding islands were not left exceptional. Debriefing experts and

interviewers are the most crucial people who posted to the migrant detention centers such as

Crotone situated in Calabria, Caltanissetta and Trapani in Sicily, and Bari in Puglia.

Migration is another region where the European Union must in conjunction with the

Mediterranean countries. In the year two thousand and eleven, immigration from and through

the Mediterranean area accounted for nearly ninety-two percent, about one hundred and thirty

thousand people, of total immigration to the European Union from non- European Union

states.

This flood of immigrants and refugees fleeing instability in their own countries could

have a destabilizing consequence on recipient countries in the European Union, since more

refugees would cause greater damage on the social welfare structure, and would apply more

pressure on the economy as the number of unemployed workers increases6

At present, the European Union is working with nations in the Mediterranean to manage

immigration with the Euro-Med Migration III Project, which means to offer training to the

European Union’s Mediterranean partners to effectively manage their borders and avoid

illegal immigration. The project will put in place high level working groups, training sessions,

and will try to boost cooperation with ENPI countries on legal, economic migration.

6 Ceccorulli, M., & Labanca, N. (2014). The EU, migration and the politics of administrative

detention.


The European Union is also working on managing illegal immigration by utilizing the

Mediterranean with several Cross Border Cooperation (CBC) Programs, which endeavor to

endorse economic and social development in the countries that form the border of the

European Union. In total, the European Union has allocated more than twenty-five million

pounds in funds for Mediterranean CBCs.

Thus, it is apparent that the European Union has a huge stake in immigration matters in

the Mediterranean region. As one of the largest net-senders of immigrants to the European

Union, this region must be vigilantly managed to make certain that illegal immigration is

hard, if not impossible. Due to its proximity to the Mediterranean region, the European Union

is inadvertently so much involved in the activities of the region. Because of this reason, any

major political shifts in the Mediterranean thus make it quite difficult for the European union

to properly police their southern borders in terms of controlling organized crime, the flow of

illegal migrates coming in through the southern borders to mention but a few.

The European Union, as a close neighbor, has several support programs for the

Mediterranean that endeavor to boost security and stability. The first of these is the Program

for Prevention, Preparedness and Response to Natural Disasters (PPRD South). This program

is dedicated to increasing the civil protection capacity of the Mediterranean countries at both

national and local levels and focuses on four key areas: Aiding in the establishment of

efficient risk assessments; enhancing prevention and awareness measures through technical

assistance and training; boosting quick responses to disasters by enhancing the management

of warning systems and employing simulation exercises; and raising awareness within the

population of risk exposure, prevention, and response to at-risk areas.


The Euro-Med Justice II is another plan that endeavors at security sector improvement

in the Mediterranean. This program aids the countries of the Mediterranean with

administrative and institutional capacity and good governance in the field of justice, together

with the simplification of judicial proceedings, the modernization of justice systems, and

improved access to justice.” Finally, the European Union’s Euro-Med Police II Program

plans to reinforce police cooperation between police forces of the European Union and its

Mediterranean allies against all varieties of organized crime. This program holds training

sessions on improving collaboration between police forces and has structured a database for

police officers to distribute information and best practices.

By the year two thousand and five, the European Union established Frontex to take up

the task of guaranteeing its safety from outside threats. Based in Warsaw, its staff amounts to

three hundred people working as short-term agents, contracting agents or specialists seconded

from national governments (European Union, 2013). The European Union formed Frontex as

a bureau so that it can function autonomously. It has practically no capability, however,

running of operations without asking much support from member states, though it has of late

attained some border control assets. It, therefore, coordinates among member states to

accomplish operations that they support with human resources. Frontex’s budget prepared

annually has skyrocketed from six million Euros in the year two thousand and five to eighty-

eight million in the year two thousand and eleven.

The European Union relies heavily on two approaches. The first is the mobility

partnerships agreements brokered by the European Commission. Moreover, it was done on


behalf of interested member states and non- European Union countries7. To date, accords have

been signed with Cape Verde, Georgia, and Moldova, and negotiations are in progress with

Senegal. They entrust the third country to boosting border security in exchange for European

help with developing the third country’s labor market to neutralize brain drain. The third

country may also obtain penchant in certain categories of provisional visas. The second

approach entails circular migration programs, the advocates of which emphasize that migrants

do not wish to inhabit permanently in their destination countries. Rather, they wish to journey

to wealthy countries to gain abilities that will assist them develop their communities back

home and to remit higher wages.

The European Union, therefore, has mechanisms in place mainly designed to encourage

seasonal migration for employment in agriculture. Additionally, other sectors like tourism or

hospitality were not left out. The temporary permit is valid for a predetermined number of

days or months, after which employees must return to their home countries.

Tendencies of convergence while comparing the policies put in place to curb illegal

immigrants by both nations were evident. On the one side, it is evident that the European

Union orients its reform initiative towards United States models. On the other side, also the

United States in parallel to its still not accomplished pursuit for an entirely watertight entry-

exit system has turned to substitute solutions outside the conventional border-related tool-set,

as a means to maintain the internal enforcement of immigration laws through the labor market

7 Holzhacker, R. L., & Luif, P. (2013). Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union:

Internal and External Dimensions of Increased Cooperation after the Lisbon Treaty.

Dordrecht: Springer.


bears striking similarities to some of the European union’s approaches which recognize illegal

immigrants by controls at the workplace.

Another important United States move onto unknown territory was the elimination of

the so-called “Western Hemisphere exemption” by requiring passport or other forms of proof

of citizenship for all Mexican, Canadian and even United States travelers crossing United

States borders, including land borders. This bears similarities with the European Union’s

borderless “Schengen area.”

The major difference in the security at the border in both the European Union and the

United States is that in the United States, via its investigative arm, Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE) is responsible for border security. It ensures that the necessary personnel

are properly trained and deployed to the borders and is also responsible for the incarceration

of illegal immigrants8. On the side of the European Union, each member of the union is

responsible for its own border security, however, Frontex; whose agents are experts and

agents from the individual member nations, an agency responsible for the overall security of

the European border was established although it lacks the proper backing to effectively deal

with the issue.

In the analysis of the border security of both the southern part of America and in the

European Union, it is clearly evident that even though problems such as organized crime

terrorism, or migratory pressure may be universal, the solutions are however not necessarily

the same. Too diverse are the starting conditions under the characteristics of state

governmental structures, constitutional values, and geographic neighborhood among other

8 In Wilson, T. M., & In Donnan, H. (2012). A companion to border studies.


factors to conceive a magic one size fits all solution. The direct transfer of foreign models

should, therefore, be considered with great care.

The European Union, United States relationship symbolizes such a case of uncertain

compatibility; though border security is a common apprehension for them, solutions will not

essentially fit both sides to the same degree. In terms of differences, there is first of all the

unilateral European Union dilemma of a yet up-and-coming union with incomplete structures

that the European Union has to resolve for itself. Although approval is gradually more

widespread that well-functioning external borders are vital not only from an economic and tax

revenue point of view but also to protect common security interests, the realistic

implementation of this insight still comes across numerous obstacles9.

It is thereby not enough just to make development in view of harmonizing border

security, but also essential that this practice takes place under the backing of autonomous

legitimacy and accountability. Only parliamentary and judicial control combined with the

know-how of data protection authorities are competent to adequately protect the people

against extreme imposition into their rights, in particular privacy.

There is in addition the question to what degree the United States notion largely marked

by its flawless entry-exit structure in reality qualifies as a model for European Union

development as defined by Future Group and Commission. Uncertainties towards its direct

execution in Europe arise under various aspects, particularly to what degree it is similar in

temperament with European values. Recent debates in the framework of the transatlantic PNR

9 In Dell'Orto, G., & In Birchfield, V. L. (2014). Reporting at the southern borders:

Journalism and public debates on immigration in the US and the EU.


agreements and the High Level Group on Information Sharing have shown how complex it is

to achieve an all-inclusive transatlantic understanding this field.

Conclusion

The next dividing line has to do with geography: endless land borders and short-

distance maritime waters combined with strong migratory force symbolize a chief challenge

to any border even where prepared with hi-tech surveillance devices. This lesson taught to the

United States themselves by the recurring failure to shut off the Mexican border should be

critically taken to heart by the Europeans. Their border lines being longer, at least at the

moment less well equipped while exposed to bigger pressure, the European Union should

think twice before enacting massive investments in technology. Typically, enough, the United

States with its massive advance in border management and technology still spent substantial

resources on closing the last gaps, but with a yet unsure outcome. Spoofing of scan readers is

theoretically possible and therefore as likely to be used for getting around border controls as

long stretches of infrequently controlled borders10.

Rather than globally introducing foreign approaches, the European Union should also

keep in mind its traditional, particularly European techniques of migration control that rely on

second-line checks of ID-cards and work permits inside the territory. Fascinatingly enough

also the United States has developed an interest in internal control policies as shown by the

labor-market-oriented pilot project e-Verify.

10 Brunet-Jailly, E. (2007). Borderlands: Comparing border security in North America and

Europe. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.


If the convergence of systems is a rational transatlantic purpose, the point of

convergence should not be determined by a one-sided acceptance of American standards. In

view of recent United States strategy changes, it would seem likely that the most rewarding

encounter would take place somewhere in the middle in combining the European Union and

the United States standards.


Bibliography

Bender, S. (2012). Run for the border: Vice and virtue in U.S.-Mexico border crossings. New

York: New York University Press.

Brunet-Jailly, E. (2007). Borderlands: Comparing border security in North America and

Europe. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Carrera, S., Hertog, L., Parkin, J., Centre for European Policy Studies (Brussels, Belgium), &

Mediterranean Prospects. (2012). EU migration policy in the wake of the Arab Spring:

What prospects for EU-Southern Mediterranean relations? Brussels, Belgium: CEPS.

Ceccorulli, M., & Labanca, N. (2014). The EU, migration and the politics of administrative

detention.

European Commission. (2006). Communication from the Commission to the Council:

Reinforcing the management of the European Union's Southern Maritime Borders.

Luxembourg: EUR-OP.

European Union. (2013). EU solidarity and Frontex: Fundamental rights challenges.

Luxembourg: Publications Office.

Holzhacker, R. L., & Luif, P. (2013). Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union:

Internal and External Dimensions of Increased Cooperation after the Lisbon Treaty.

Dordrecht: Springer.

In Dell'Orto, G., & In Birchfield, V. L. (2014). Reporting at the southern borders: Journalism

and public debates on immigration in the US and the EU.

In Gerdes, L. I. (2014). Should the US close its borders?

In Wilson, T. M., & In Donnan, H. (2012). A companion to border studies.


NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Security and Cross/Border Cooperation in the EU,

the Black Sea Region and Southern Caucasus, Ergun, A., Isaxanlı, H., & IOS Press.

(2013). Security and cross-border cooperation in the EU, the Black Sea Region and

Southern Caucasus. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Romero, F. (2008). Hyperborder: The contemporary U.S.-Mexico border and its future. New

York: Princeton Architectural Press.

border security of the southern parts of both the us and the european union

Education