The immigration debate: Steven M. Ladik reviews Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma.

Although US citizens have traditionally viewed the United States as a nation of immigrants, American history is marked by continuous distrust for the latest wave of immigrants to its shores. Since US President George W. Bush recently began discussing an immigration accord with Mexico, the immigration debate has grown in volume and animosity. US citizens are reminded on a daily basis by conservative commentators of our "broken borders" and the threat to our sovereignty if we do not put a stop to excessive immigration.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The disparate views expressed in the media and by the public are most evident in the current legislation pending in Congress--harsh border-enforcement measures which have been proposed in the House juxtaposed against comprehensive immigration reform measures proposed in the Senate that would regularize the flow of immigrants.

The chasm between House and Senate positions may be too great to reconcile an effective compromise which would both secure American borders and simultaneously provide a legal means for lesser skilled workers to fill the extensive economic demand for these workers in our society.

Those who cry out against US immigration policy offer reams of statistics to support their position that immigration is dangerous for their country. In Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma, Mikhail A. Alexseev undertakes a deeper analysis to explain extreme anti-immigrant behavior in societies throughout the world.

Defining immigration phobia as an inexplicable, exaggerated, and disabling fear relating to the legal or illegal movement of people across nation-state, provincial, county, municipal, or neighborhood boundaries, Alexseev first notes the many paradoxes associated with this phobia. First and foremost is the phenomenon of exaggerated fear which is characterized by the use of terms such as "swamped," "overrun," or "overwhelmed," where the actual number of immigrants in a particular area is miniscule in relation to the total population. Alexseev conducted research in the Russian Far East where fears of Chinese immigrants were rampant. And yet he found that in the midst of the exaggerated fears and hostile actions expressed toward Chinese immigrants, they actually only made up 1.5 percent of the population. Fiji experienced this same phenomenon with relation to Sikh immigrants.

Malays experienced the phenomenon with Chinese immigrants and Krasnodar krai in the Russian North Caucasus experienced it in relation to the Meskhetian Turk refugees. The phenomenon is further illustrated by the municipal government of Lewiston, Maine, which wrote a letter asking the leaders of the local Somali population to restrict any further immigration to that town, in spite of the fact that they constituted less than 2.8 percent of the population.

In a related paradox, Alexseev notes that, conversely, some countries with large percentages of immigration such as the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Kuwait experience only minimal public fear of their immigrant population.

Since the 1980s, many writers began framing the migration phenomena as a security issue when, in fact, security challenges to a nation's sovereignty occur far less than socio-economic challenges. Using examples to which all readers can relate through personal experience in their own country, Alexseev points out that it is the perception of threat to an individual, a group or a national identity that plays such an important part in the formation of immigration phobia, rather than any actual threat. Indeed, it would be counterintuitive to experience an actual threat from a marginal minority that is too small to dilute or destroy the cultural identity of a host society. And yet such marginal minorities are capable of triggering immigration phobia in all societies.

Alexseev develops a "security dilemma" model to describe anti-immigrant hostility in host societies. This model takes into account the following perceptions in the host society: anarchy, intent of the migrant population, "groupness" of the migrant population, and socio-economic impact. He posits that the level of these perceptions and their interaction will then determine the level of threat experienced by the host population and the amount of hostility they will then express toward the immigrant population.

Anarchy relates to the host population's perception of their government's ability to secure their borders and protect the host population from excessive immigration.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was sufficient to raise the fears of anarchy in the Russian Far East example and US citizens are bombarded with media coverage that creates a perception of anarchy with regard to US border control. This perception of anarchy and loss of governmental control raises the perceived threat of immigration in the public mind.

The intent of the migrant population refers to the host's society perception of whether the migrants have territorial claims, whether they are integrating into society, and whether they maintain loyalties to their sending state. In recent demonstrations by the Mexican-American population in the United States, the overt expression of loyalty to Mexico through the display of large numbers of Mexican flags created an unease in US society which raised the perception that these immigrants would remain loyal to Mexico.

Groupness relates to the migrant population's proclivity to assimilation and also to their visual and perceptual distinctiveness. For example, an immigrant population's refusal to learn the primary language of the host society may raise the threat perception in the host population.

Finally, perceptions of socio-economic impact, including impact on income and jobs, education, the environment, and crime will also lead to greater threat perception in the host population.

Thus an anarchical environment wherein the public believes that its government cannot control the border, coupled with the migration of a distinct group with intent to settle permanently and impact the availability of jobs and income of the host population, will likely raise perceptions of threat that can readily lead to hostility against the migrant population.

Through detailed historical research, Alexseev shows that human populations opt for pre-emptive self-defensive measures when these factors lead them to perceive a direct threat to their security and sovereignty. In addition to the Russian Far East, Alexseev examines xenophobia across Europe, the current immigration dilemma in the United States and the Los Angeles riots of 1992.

Viewing immigration issues through the security dilemma model, Alexseev warns that pure enforcement measures enacted in an environment with existing economic demand for low cost migrant labor will never be successful and that more comprehensive solutions to migration issues are necessary.

He concludes by proposing a reduced securitization of immigration control with effective methods to manage migrant flows and unlock the social and economic potential of migration through increased interactivity among global, interstate, national and local institutions, as well as increased use of economic incentives in migration management.

While it may be naive to imagine any increased global controls on international migration in the near future, there are existing precedents in the field of international trade which illustrate the possibility of greater global cooperation.

Alexseev's work can be excessively academic for the casual reader interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the reasons for anti-immigrant hostility and his use of "mathematical" formulas to explain his model can be tedious.

Nonetheless, the detail of his analysis and the creative and new ideas that he adds to the literature on immigration make his book exceptionally interesting, topical, and uniquely useful to policymakers across the world designing and implementing immigration laws.

STEVEN M. LADIK is past President of the American Immigration Law Foundation and past President of the American Immigration Lawyers' Association. He currently serves as Chairman of the Immigration Department at the law firm of Jenkens & Gilchrist, P.C. Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma is by Mikhail A. Alexseev (Cambridge University Press, 2005).