What Actions Prompted The Border Control Offensive?

What Actions Prompted The Border Control Offensive And Made The Iss

What actions prompted the border control offensive and made the issue of illegal immigration a priority? The border control offensive was based on a strategy developed by the INS called “prevention through deterrence” (Andreas, 2009, p. 92). The objective was to deter illegal crossings by implementing measures such as increased fencing, harsher penalties, more law enforcement personnel, and surveillance equipment. These measures aimed to psychologically impact illegal immigrants, making them believe crossing without detection was impossible. As a result, most would refrain from attempting illegal crossings, and those who did would often fail repeatedly, leading to frustration and depletion of resources (Andreas, 2009, p. 92). I personally believe that all of the above measures are beneficial and necessary.

Furthermore, I believe harsher penalties should be implemented beyond the current measures. When someone is apprehended attempting illegal entry, the current consequences seem insufficient, often resulting in a mere “slap on the wrist.” The system needs to enforce stricter punishments on these offenders. I also support increasing the number of law enforcement personnel, particularly border patrol agents, as the challenge is immense. A tactic known as the “Banzai run,” where fifty migrants charge the border striving to overpower agents, exemplifies the threats border security faces (Andreas, 2009, p. 88).

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The heightened focus on border security and immigration enforcement in the United States has been driven by a series of strategic actions aimed at curbing illegal immigration. One of the foundational approaches is the concept of “prevention through deterrence,” formulated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). This strategy emphasizes making illegal crossings as difficult and risky as possible to discourage migrants from attempting the journey in the first place. According to Andreas (2009), this involves the deployment of physical barriers such as fences, increased penalties for illegal crossings, and enhanced law enforcement presence, including surveillance technology. These measures collectively aim to create a psychological barrier, instilling the belief among potential migrants that crossing undetected is nearly impossible. Such an approach leverages the human tendency to avoid high-risk endeavors, thus reducing the number of illegal entries (Andreas, 2009).

The effectiveness of these actions hinges on their ability to alter migrant behavior through fear of apprehension and punishment. By raising the perceived risks, the authorities hope to dissuade migrants from even attempting the crossing. Those who attempt may face repeated failures, leading to frustration and exhaustion of resources, further discouraging illegal activities (Andreas, 2009). Despite these measures, critics argue that the system should be more punitive, advocating for harsher penalties to serve as an even stronger deterrent. Currently, apprehended individuals often face relatively lenient consequences, which may not serve as a sufficient warning to others.

In addition to legislative penalties, expanding the workforce of border enforcement agencies is seen as crucial. Increasing border patrol personnel and technological surveillance can enhance the capacity to detect and intercept illegal crossings effectively. For instance, the “Banzai run,” a tactic where a large group of migrants charges the border simultaneously to overpower agents, underscores the ongoing challenges faced by security personnel (Andreas, 2009).

Beyond enforcement tactics, understanding the broader context of the “enemy” is essential. The primary adversary is not terrorists but rather illegal immigrants attempting to bypass legal immigration channels. These individuals are often accused of violating the law, although not necessarily engaging in criminal conduct beyond unlawful entry. The legal system seeks to protect the borders from illegal entry and contraband, which can include drugs, weapons, or other illicit goods. Some stakeholders also identify the wastage of time and resources in processing illegal crossings as a formidable obstacle—supporting stricter enforcement to conserve governmental resources and ensure public safety.

The link between border enforcement and public health and safety is evident. Enforcing stricter border controls reduces the likelihood of dangerous individuals and illness-causing items entering the country. For example, customs procedures, such as searching bags and checking for illegal substances or prohibited produce, help maintain public health standards (Andreas, 2009). Thus, border security measures serve both national safety and health interests by preventing the entry of potential threats. In conclusion, the actions that prompted the border control offensive—ranging from physical barriers to increased penalties—are rooted in strategic efforts to repel illegal immigration and protect public safety, anchoring a multifaceted approach that continues to evolve based on the shifting dynamics of migration and security threats.

References

• Andreas, P. (2009). Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide (2nd ed.). Cornell University Press.
• Title 8, Aliens and Nationality, U.S. Code, Sec. 1324.