Fluent Essays

Please read the oral Presentation Instruction doc and follow the guide please come up an interesting international migration related topic feel free to use the materials I uploaded and any other online sources(must be credible and cited)a 8 slides ppt and a presentation essay(5-7 minutes)In the slide 7 You need to read the paper 2 guideline and give the ideas about paper 2 ill invite you in the paper 2 assignment andreas.border.games__1_.pdf oral_presentation_instructions.docx andreas.borders.security__1_.pdf unhcr.global.report.2018.pdf explainer_uslegalimmigrationsystem_print_final__1_.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview Oral Presentation IRE 104/SOC 104 International Migration Spring Quarter 2020 INSTRUCTION FOR POWERPOINT PRESENTATION The PowerPoint presentation should be emailed to the convener (Jeannette Money jnmoney@ucdavis.edu or Jonathan Colner jpcolner@ucdavis.edu) by 12:00 noon on the day of the presentation. The slides will be loaded prior to class time so we do not lose time in loading slides. The PPP should contain at least 5 slides and not more than 8 slides. The oral presentation should be 5-7 minutes; you need to practice beforehand to ensure that you will not run over time. Slide 1: Title of the presentation (should be descriptive of content) and presenter’s name Slide 2: Research question – what is the presentation about Slides 3-6 (max): Narrative: description of what happened; the “who, what, when, and where” of the presentation. This can be organized chronologically or by initiator, policy, outcome, or by some appropriate organizational scheme Slide 7: Ideas about Paper 2 – what will you be trying to explain – the adoption of policy, the implementation of policy, the outcome of the policy Slide 8: References DATES/SECTION FOR ORAL PRESENTATIONS (Please note that you are scheduled for EITHER May 27 OR June 1. That is the only time you are required to attend. May 27 – Group 1 (Jeannette Money) Viviana Alvarado Reina Banuelos Annalisa Barlin Eric Barreto Estrada Melanie Calderon Xinyun Chen Maja Collins Rober Domenech Arely Garcia Edwin Gonzalez Bucio Sonia Hernandez May 27 – Group 2 (Jonathan Colner) Annie Hsu Mariann Lactaoen Marcos Marquis Legrande Brandy Neely Gresia Ocampo Sergio Ortiz Nikita Patel Megan Powers Esmeralda Ramirez Cresenciana Rios Daisy Robles June 1 – Group 1 (Jeannette Money Claudia Reyes Rodriguez Mayra Ruiz Magana Gabriella Salgado-Teleki Kristin Sandoval Xiangyi Shi Ali Soleimani Samhita Subramanian Mohammad Sultini Daniel Tekle Paola Torres Sabrina Urzua June 1 – Group 2 (Jonathan Colner) Brandon Blanco Gauri Bora Talia D’Amato Mayela Diaz Harry Fleming Daniel Gamboa Antonio Levine Esmeralda Mendoza Ariana Paiz Villanueva Steward Pimienta Hashmatullah Rahmati Redrawing the Line: Borders and Security in the Twenty-First Century Author(s): Peter Andreas Source: International Security, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Fall, 2003), pp. 78-111 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137469 Accessed: 03-09-2019 16:58 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137469?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Security This content downloaded from 169.237.160.75 on Tue, 03 Sep 2019 16:58:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Redrawing the Line Peter Andreas Borders and Security in the Twenty-first Century Border control-the effort to restrict territorial access-has long been a core state activity. As terri- torially demarcated institutions, states have always imposed entry barriers, whether to deter armies, tax trade and protect domestic producers, or keep out perceived undesirables. All states monopolize the right to determine who and what is granted legitimate territorial access.2 But there is significant historical variation in border control priorities. Although military defense and eco- nomic regulation have traditionally been central border concerns, in many places states are retooling and reconfiguring their border regulatory apparatus to prioritize policing. Thus, rather than simply eroding, as is often assumed, the importance of territoriality is persisting-but with a shift in emphasis.3 In many cases, more intensive border law enforcement is accompanying the demilitarization and economic liberalization of borders. The policing objective is to deny territorial access to what I term clandes- tine transnational actors (CTAs), defined as nonstate actors who operat across national borders in violation of state laws and who attempt to evade law enforcement efforts. CTAs are as dramatically varied as their motives. They may be driven by high profits and market demand (e.g., drug traffickers an migrant smugglers), the desire to carry out politically or religiously inspired acts of violence (terrorists), or the search for employment or refuge (the vas majority of unauthorized migrants). They may be highly organized or disorg Peter Andreas is Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Brown University Earlier versions of this article were presented at seminars at Harvard University and Rutgers Universit Newark. I thank Thomas Biersteker, Peter Katzenstein, Rey Koslowski, Darius Rejali, James Ron, and anon ymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. 1. Malcolm Anderson, Frontiers: Territory and State Formation in the Modern World (Cambridge: Pol ity, 1996). 2. Stephen D. Krasner, Power Politics, Institutions, and Transnational Relations, in Thomas Risse-Kappen, ed., Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures, and International Institutions (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 268; and Samuel P. Huntington, Transnational Organizations in World Politics, World Politics, Vol. 25, No. 3 (April 1973), pp. 333-368. 3. Territoriality is the attempt by an individual or group to affect, influence, or control people, phenomena, and relationships by delimiting and asserting control over a geographic area. Robert David Sack, Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 19. International Security, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Fall 2003), pp. 78-111 ? 2003 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 78 This content downloaded from 169.237.160.75 on Tue, 03 Sep 2019 16:58:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Redrawing the Line 179 nized and operate regionally or globally. Nevertheless, these otherwise radically different types of CTAs have some core common characteristics: They are the targets of border controls, and their border-crossing strategies are designed to avoid detection and minimize the risk of apprehension. CTAs have existed in one form or another as long as states have imposed border controls. What has changed over time are the organization of CTAs and their methods and speed of cross-border movement; state laws and the form, intensity, and focus of their enforcement; and the level of public anxiety and policy attention. Although the methods of policing CTAs vary considerably both at and beyond physical borderlines, they can be collectively categorized as border con- trols given that the goal is to selectively deny territorial access. The intensification of border controls in recent years is evident in sharply rising law enforcement budgets; new and more invasive laws; the development of more sophisticated surveillance and information technologies; stricter visa regimes and more technologically advanced and forgery-resistant travel documents; enhanced cooperation with source and transit countries and a greater extension of tracking and control mechanisms beyond the point of entry (i.e., a thickening of borders and the creation of buffer zones); and in some places, growing use of military and intelligence hardware, personnel, and expertise for policing tasks. The importance of policing territorial access is also evident in the rising prominence of law enforcement in international diplomacy and in the policy discourse about borders, with many states formally promoting policing from the traditional status of low politics to the high politics of security. These border changes are most apparent in the advanced industrialized regions of the world, especially the United States and the European Union (EU), and have been substantially reinforced and accelerated by the policy response to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Although popularly called a war, much of the day-to- day activities of counterterrorism resemble crime fighting more than war fighting. Despite the increasing salience of policing CTAs in world politics, this has not been a central area of study in international relations.4 Even the expansive literatures on transnational relations and globalization have had little to say about the clandestine side of the transnational world and state efforts to police 4. A notable exception is Ethan Nadelmann, Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in International Society, International Organization, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Fall 1990), pp. 479-526. See also H. Richard Friman and Peter Andreas, The Illicit Global Economy and State Power (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999). This content downloaded from 169.237.160.75 on Tue, 03 Sep 2019 16:58:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms International Security 28:2 180 it.5 Police matters have typically been bracketed by international relations scholars, left to criminologists and criminal justice specialists who have mostly focused on domestic issues such as local crime control.6 While the dynamics of border law enforcement and law evasion have been a growing concern of policymakers, international relations debates over borders and territorial controls have tended to concentrate on conventionally defined military and eco- nomic issues. On the one hand, many international relations scholars have concluded that the decline of militarized interstate border disputes and the growing economic permeability of borders have made borders and territorial controls increasingly irrelevant. On the other hand, many traditional security scholars continue to insist on the enduring primacy of military border concerns. Challenging both of these common views, I argue that borders are not eroding or remaining unchanged, but are being recrafted through ambitious and innovative state efforts to territorially exclude CTAs while assuring territorial access for desirable entries. In the next section, I briefly examine leading accounts of borders and territorial controls in the international relations literature. I then trace the recent ex- pansion of border policing in the United States and the EU, where growing anxiety over CTAs not only has transformed state border regulatory practices and cross-border relations, but has blurred traditional distinctions between ex- ternal and internal security. Territorial politics in both places, I suggest, is increasingly defined by territorial policing, creating a new geopolitics based on law enforcement concerns. I conclude by emphasizing that regardless of its effectiveness as an instrument of territorial exclusion, border policing has high symbolic and perceptual appeal and will likely continue to be an increasingly important state activity. Contending Views of Borders and Territorial Controls Borders have traditionally been viewed first and foremost in military terms. The vast majority of interstate wars, after all, have historically been about terri5. Transnational relations are regular interactions across national boundaries when at least one actor is a non-state agent or does not operate on behalf of a national government or an intergovernmental organization. Thomas Risse-Kappen, Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Introduction, in Risse-Kappen, Bringing Transnational Relations Back In, p. 3. 6. One indicator of the neglect of policing in international relations is the virtual absence of articles on the subject in leading journals in the field, such as International Organization, International Security, International Studies Quarterly, and World Politics. On the need for criminologists to focus more on cross-border activities, see William E McDonald, The Globalization of Criminology: The Next Frontier Is the Frontier, Transnational Organized Crime, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring 1995), pp. 1-22. This content downloaded from 169.237.160.75 on Tue, 03 Sep 2019 16:58:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Redrawing the Line 81 torial defense and conquest. Early geopolitical thinking stressed the centrality of territorial competition and acquisition. Classic geopolitical analysis fits comfortably within a realist theoretical framework, with its emphasis on interstate conflict over territory.9 In the view of Robert Gilpin, states have always had the conquest of territory in order to advance economic, security, and other interests as a principal goal. Not surprisingly, the influence of realism is most evident in security studies, which has overwhelmingly focused on strategies of war making and war preparation. As Stephen Walt puts it, The main focus of security studies is easy to identify . . . it is the phenomenon of war. In the realist conception of security, threats are external and military based, and the actors are rational unitary states. Borders are strategic lines to be militarily defended or breached. State survival is based on the deterrent function of borders against military incursions by other states. The realist view of borders and territorial security thus is fundamentally about interstate rather than transnational relations.12 There are obvious historical reasons for this military-focused worldview. As Charles Tilly and others have documented, the modern state was created as a war machine: States made war and war made states.13 Yet state making is a continuous process. Major interstate military conflicts have greatly diminished, and borders are rarely contested militarily. There has been a sharp downturn in the use of force to alter interstate boundaries. This astonishing border trend is partly the result of growing international respect for what Mark Zacher calls the territorial integrity norm.4 Consequently, the traditional military function of borders has become much less important than in the past. 7. John Keegan, A History of Warfare (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993). 8. For a review of conceptions of territory in the study and practice of international relations, see Thomas J. Biersteker, State, Sovereignty, and Territory, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simms, eds., Handbook of International Relations (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2002), pp. 157-175. 9. See, for example, John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001). 10. Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 23. 11. Stephen M. Walt, The Renaissance of Security Studies, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2 (June 1991), pp. 212-213. 12. This is especially true of neorealism. See Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979). For a rare realist analysis of transnational relations, see Stephen D. Krasner, Power Politics, Institutions, and Transnational Relations, in Risse-Kappen, Bringing Transnational Relations Back In, pp. 257-279. 13. Charles Tilly, Coercion, Capital, and European States: A.D. 990-1992 (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1992). 14. Mark W. Zacher, The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force, International Organization, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Spring 2002), pp. 215-250. This content downloaded from 169.237.160.75 on Tue, 03 Sep 2019 16:58:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms International Security 28:2 182 There is no equivalent norm to inhibit nonstate actors from crossing borders in violation of state laws. And states have increasingly defined many CTAs as new security threats, merging internal and external security concerns and providing a rationale for more expansive border controls and policing powers. This shift away from traditional military border concerns and toward law enforcement concerns tends to be overlooked by those realists who insist that there will soon be a return to military rivalry and conflict among major powers.5 As a result, there is a widening gap between the traditional realist conception of security and borders and what many states are actually doing in the realm of security and border defenses. The gap between theory and practice has become even more pronounced in the post-September 11 security environment.16 Transnational law evaders rather than interstate military invaders increasingly drive state border security priorities. Geopolitics is alive and well, but is increasingly based on policing matters. Challenging realism, globalists point not only to the declining military relevance of borders but also to the border-blurring effects of globalization, generally characterized as an intensification of interdependence and cross-border interactions.17 Indeed, some scholars consider the supposed declining importance of borders as part of the very definition of globalization.8 Major transformations-the internationalization of production, the liberalization of trade, the mobility of finance, and advances in transportation and communication technology-are viewed by globalists as key indicators of border erosion. Since the 1970s, many scholars have argued that these technological and economic changes facilitate and encourage growing cross-border linkages between soci- etal actors and diminish the primacy of traditional security concerns.19 15. See John J. Mearsheimer, Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War, Interna- tional Security, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Summer 1990), pp. 5-56. 16. Peter J. Katzenstein notes that terrorism is an issue that has long been at the margins of security studies. Katzenstein, September 11 in Comparative Perspective: The Counter-Terrorism Campaigns of Germany and Japan, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts, August 29-September 1, 2002, p. 6. 17. The term globalists is similarly used by Virginie Guiraudon and Gallya Lahav to refer to scholars who view borders as declining in relevance in an increasingly interdependent and integrated world. See Guiraudon and Lahav, A Reappraisal of the State Sovereignty Debate: The Case of Migration Control, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2 (March 2000), pp. 163-195. 18. Edward S. Cohen, for example, defines globalization as a set of economic, cultural, and technological processes that are reducing the significance of territorial boundaries in shaping the conditions of life of persons and societies. See Cohen, Globalization and the Boundaries of the State: A Framework for Analyzing the Changing Practice of Sovereignty, Governance, Vol. 14, No. 1 (January 2001), p. 81. 19. See Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, eds., Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971). This content downloaded from 169.237.160.75 on Tue, 03 Sep 2019 16:58:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Redrawing the Line 183 Whether celebrated or bemoaned, a popular view is that the state is bowing to global market forces and pressures from nonstate actors. In the liberal variant of this globalist perspective, more pacific trading states are replacing traditional warfare states, with economic exchange prioritized over territorial conquest.20 Globalists th ... Purchase answer to see full attachment