Why Krikorian and Danticat arguments are different perspectives of the same subject.

Immigration rules and policies are designed with the objective of
containing the entry of illegal immigrants, especially those with
intentions to engage in terrorist activities. The high rate of increases
in incidents of terrorism globally has forced governments to tighten-up
their immigration policies in order to enhance the national security.
However, the tight policies and measures taken to contain the movement
of terrorist across the borders have been criticized by different people
on the grounds that they violate the human rights of immigrants,
including the innocent ones. On this note, some people feel that control
immigration is the best way to ensure the national security while others
feel that it is not the best approach. This paper compares and contrasts
the perspectives given by Mark Krikorian in “Safety through
Immigration Control” and Edwidge Danticat in “Not Your Homeland”.
The Krikorian’s piece of work “Safety through immigration control”
establishes the link between the nature of immigration rules and
terrorism with the major focus on the United States. Krikorian argues
that the weak immigration policies are the major cause of the increase
in illegal immigrants and incidents of terrorism in the country. This
argument is based on the ground that terrorism requires the active
participation of human beings with the terrorism ideation. This means
that the security of the United States can be enhanced by restricting
immigration and enforcing immigration rules (Krikorian 593) Krikorian
believes that terrorist succeed in carrying out their actions in the
United States by taking advantage of several weaknesses existing in the
immigration system.
Edwidge Danticat, on the other hand, criticizes the immigration rules of
the United States from her experience as an immigrant. She develops the
plot of her piece “Not your homeland” by giving examples of
hardships that immigrants who seek for refuge in the United States go
through as they look for a better life. She condemns the immigration
officers and the immigration policies for the tough experiences of
immigrants, especially the refugees from Haiti. Danticat states that
America had mistaken the immigrants from terrorists or immigrants
(Danticat 599). Although the strict immigration rules formulated by the
United States resulted from the increase in security threats after the
September 11 attack, Danticat believes that the harsh immigration rules
take away the rights of refugees.
Similarity between the perspectives of the two authors
The two pieces of work present different feature of the same subject of
immigration. Krikorian views immigration as one of the key threats to
the homeland security and argues that the immigration system of the
United States should be redesigned to enhance its application in all
aspects of immigration. Krikorian argues that the immigration system of
the United States should be applied at all stages of the immigration
process starting from issuing of visas, screening immigrants at points
of entry (including airports and borders), and enforcement of the
immigration rules within the country (Krikorian 595). Danticat does not
oppose Krikorian’s view, but diverts her argument to focus on the
impact of immigration rules on immigrants. Danticat asks if American
will learn how to maintain security without harassing the innocent
(Danticat 602). This suggests that Danticat does not oppose the
existence of immigration rules, but the way they are applied. The two
authors examine the subject of immigration and immigration rules in the
United States.
Differences in the perceptions of the two authors
Although Krikorian and Danticat do not disagree on the need for
immigration rules in countering terrorism, they present different ideas
about immigration in the United States. Krikorian tries to connect loose
immigration laws in the United States with the increase in acts of
terrorism within the borders of the United States. Krikorian states that
the burden of maintaining the homeland security cannot be borne by the
armed forces (either defensive or offensive), but by civilian agencies,
including the Department of Homeland Security (Krikorian 594). This
statement trivializes the military approach adopted by the United States
to fight terrorism within the country and overseas, but emphasize on the
importance of controlling the entry of terrorist through the U.S.
borders. Krikorian reinforces this statement by suggesting that one
third of the 40 Al Qaida terrorist were temporary visitors, one fourth
were legal aliens, while the rest were asylum applicants waiting the
approval of their applications (Krikorian 595). This indicates that the
immigration system is to blame for the entry of people with intentions
to engage in terrorism in the United States.
While Krikorian thinks that the immigration rules of the United States
are loose, Danticat finds them stringent and inhuman. She speaks from
her experience as an asylum applicant and a refugee from Haiti who lived
in a commercial hotel, Comfort Suit, where they were treated as
prisoners (Danticat 598). Based on this argument, Danticat blames the
U.S. immigration system that resulted in the treatment of refugees as
suspects of terrorism and denied them their human rights while in the
asylum. Danticat also gives the example of her uncle who had a
multiple-entry visa, but was arrested by immigration officers at Miami
when he stated that he needed a temporary asylum (Danticat 606).
Danticat focuses on inhumane treatment of refugees and the strict
immigration rules from an emotional point of view, but fails to address
the reasons behind the stringency.
Krikorian’s approach is more effective because he points at the
problems (loose immigration rules) discusses its effects (increase in
acts of terrorism) and suggests a viable solution (reforming the current
immigration rules). In addition, Krikorian’s argument is more
objective because it is based on facts. For example, Krikorian is able
to use figures prove his argument by stating that one third out of the
forty Al Qaeda terrorist who engaged in acts of terrorism since 1993
visited the United States temporarily, a quarter were legal aliens,
while the rest were immigrant who had applied for asylum (Krikorian
595). This is an object argument, unlike the subjective case presented
by Danticat, which is based on her own experiences.
Both Krikorian and Danticat present different views of the same subject
of immigration in the United States. The two authors do not negate the
need for immigration rules, but their perceptions vary where Krikorian
thinks that the U.S. immigration rules are loose while Danticat finds
them stringent. Krikorian trivializes the use of military force to fight
terrorism and advocates for reforms in the immigration rules while
Danticat advocates for the maintenance of the national security, but in
a way that respects the rights of immigrants. The Krikorian argument is
more objective because it is based on facts rather than subjective
opinions and emotions.
Works cited
Danticat, E. “Not your homeland”. The nation (2005): 598-601.
Krikorian, M. “Safety through immigration control”. Providence
Journal (2004): 593-595.