Basis of security migration
Securitisation of migration is a process whereby immigrants are seen as a security threat. For example, a country that implements the policy of securitisation, will beef up security at the borders, deport some people and closely surveil immigrants. Securitisation has more disadvantages than can be realised. Furthermore, securitisation of migration has not been clearly defined based on economic growth, smuggling and illegal documentation such as passports.
Looking closely at the very foundations of the United States America, it is practical that immigrants are responsible for their significant growth over the years. Some of these immigrants were enslaved and toiled to establish the great America we see today. Consequently, it is unjust for immigrants to be considered a threat to national security. Free migration of people from one region to another is significant. In other words, implementing a law that does not place securitisation of migration will lead to the promotion of political associations, economic growth, sharing of cultures, reduced crime rates and many other benefits.
One of the disadvantages of securitisation of migration is that it limits both market and economic growth. For example, a given region comprising of two or more countries has an advantage of market expansion. Goods can easily be transported from one place to another freely since few legal procedures are involved in the borders. Indeed, there will be a wide range of economic activities if migration is not securitised. People could move from one region to another and engage in diverse economic activities of which would not be the case if they were restricted to their areas. Eventually, the economy grows faster due to the increase in activities.
Secondly, securitisation of migration seems to breed illegal activities such as faking of passports and smuggling. The basis of securitisation of migration, as intended, has always been to control immigrants and to watch their movements. Due to this, immigrants work smart so that they can avoid being caught by the authorities. For example, an immigrant living in a foreign country would think of a way to help his family to cross over the border without legit documents. If the government has placed its restrictions on migration, then he has no choice but to seek illegal and untraceable means to get illegal documentation for his family to be allowed to immigrate.
Regions with porous borders cannot adequately neutralise illegal activities such as smuggling of goods by securitisation of migration. It would be easy for the authorities to allow the importation of goods to pave the way for inspection and earn custom duty other than restricting products and finally end up worrying about smuggling. Once people experience restrictions, they tend to find alternatives to go round the problem. In that case, they will study the border to find a route that has poor security and continue with their illegal business.
In conclusion, the reality of allowing immigrants to move freely is louder than restricting their movement. Immigrants are very resourceful in the growth and development of a country both economically and socially. Other than considering immigrants to be a threat, international relations can work best through negotiations and forming alliances between nations. This way, the countries get to understand what they can profit from each other instead of creating barriers which have proven to work negatively.