The U.S. versus them

(1)

U.S. Versus Them

The effects of the September 11 attacks on migration policy in the United States and how

this has influenced visa issuances to migrants from Muslim-majority countries in particular

Anke van Gils

I

Bachelor Thesis Geography, Planning and Environment (GPE)

Nijmegen School of Management

(2)

Bachelor Thesis Geography, Planning and Environment (GPE)

Nijmegen School of Management Radboud University Nijmegen

July 2020

U.S. Versus Them

The effects of the September 11 attacks on migration policy in the United States and how

this has influenced visa issuances to migrants from Muslim-majority countries in

particular

Author

Anke van Gils

Student Number

S1003915

Supervisor

(3)

Summary

This Bachelor’s thesis focusses on the impacts of the September 11 attacks on visa issuances to migrants from Muslim-majority countries, in comparison to those to migrants from other countries. Since post-9/11 political and media discourse have influenced the general view of Muslims toward a more negative image, one might expect that this has also had a restrictive influence on visa issuances to migrants from Muslim-majority countries. The purpose of this thesis is therefore to find out whether migration policies have indeed become more restrictive for Muslim migrants in particular, and whether we see this impact in a larger decrease in issuances to migrants from this category, as compared to other migrants.

To answer this, various methods have been used. First, a general literature framework was established through examining existing literature on how foreign policies are being developed, how these have affected global mobility over the years, and on how framing and securitization processes can affect these policy developments. Then, an analysis was conducted on the migration policy of the US in the years before 9/11 until the time this thesis was written. Added to this are important background events that have influenced these policy changes. Lastly, data on both immigrant and non-immigrant visa issuances, or permanent and temporary permits, per country was retrieved from the website of the US Bureau of Consular Affairs. These were divided into the two categories by using data from the CIA World Factbook on religion. By a ‘Muslim-majority country’ a country is meant where at least 50% of the population is Muslim. Then, changes in the issuances in the period of 1991, ten years prior to 9/11, to present have been compared to provide an image on the impacts of post-9/11 policy changes for different categories of migrants. In doing so, both absolute and relative changes were taken into regard.

In general, most entry migration policy has become more restrictive for all migrants. After 9/11, we saw a strong securitization of migration. Entry by foreign nationals has been more and more perceived as a threat to US national security. An example is provided by the establishment of the Homeland Security Act in 2002, which moved matters of migration to the watchful eye of the Department of Homeland Security. This securitization has led to several far-reaching measures that were adopted in acts like the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Act of 2002, and the REAL ID Act of 2005. Border security became far more enhanced and strict, which was especially visible on the US-Mexico border. New conditions for entry were established that were more restrictive than the previous ones. Also, more data was collected on migrants that entered the country, including biometric data. For non-immigrants, visa overstays were more strictly monitored and sanctioned.

When we look at Muslim migrants in particular, we see that these were mostly the victim of more extreme security measures right after the September 11 attacks. These measures included an increase in arrests for minor visa violations for which they could be held longer, the provision of little information on the reason for their arrest, and in some cases even abuse while in jail. Also, in the ‘axis of evil’ speech by President Bush, he pointed toward the countries of North Korea, Iran and Iraq as countries with governments that supported terrorism (Bush, 2001-2008). This also affected issuances to migrants from the Muslim-majority countries of Iran and Iraq. In 2002 the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) was launched that started the more extensive registration of non-immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria that wanted to enter the US for a temporary stay. Migrants from these countries now had to leave more biometric data, such as fingerprints and photographs, and undergo an interview upon arrival in the US. Next to this, NSEERS also obliged migrants from 25 countries to report to an immigration office of the Department of

(4)

Homeland Security for further background checks. Of these 25 countries, 24 were Muslim-majority ones. Years later, we see how Muslims are also the subject of the travel ban issued by President Trump in 2017. In general, both the Presidents Bush and Trump tended to apply a strong securitization of Islam. Obama on the contrary, attempted to get rid of this image. However, he only seems to have succeeded in changing political discourse, which in its turn was reversed again when Trump came into office.

If we look at the number of visa issuances over the years we see a general decline in the period after 9/11, which took place at the end of fiscal year 2001. The effects are most visible in the issuances of the fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The findings have been split up into the two categories of immigrant and non-immigrant issuances. For immigrant visas, we see a general decrease of 10.2% in issuances over the period of fiscal year 2001 until fiscal year 2003. Muslim-majority immigrants experienced the largest decline of 27.4%, and the other migrants saw a decrease of only 7%. In the non-immigrant category the changes after 9/11 were even larger. The overall amount of issuances decreased by 35.7%, with the Muslim-majority category again receiving the most grave impact with a decline in issuances of no less than 46.8%. For the other migrants the decrease was also severe with 34.4% less issuances in fiscal year 2003 in comparison to the number in fiscal year 2001.

We can conclude that migrants from Muslim-majority countries indeed seem to be the most gravely impacted category after the 9/11 attacks in terms of visa issuances. In both immigrant and non-immigrant issuances this group experienced the largest decline. It is likely that this was caused by more restrictive migration policies due to a more negative public and political perception of Muslim migrants.

However, some shortcomings of this research are worth mentioning. Firstly, the impacts of 9/11 on both unauthorized migrants and refugees were not examined, since these were not included in one of the categories by the Bureau of Consular Affairs (1991-2019). Also, the correlation between policy developments and the decrease in visa issuances does not rule out other possible influences on visa issuances. This research focusses on policy in the country of destination, which leaves out factors in the country of origin. Because no data has been found on visa applications and refusals, it is not possible to rule out the option that migrants simply applied for visas less after 9/11 due to various factors, such as a more negative image of the US, fear of getting on an airplane, or due to increased travel costs and efforts due to more security checks. Lastly, differences between individual Muslim-majority countries, or between visa types within the two broad categories were not examined.

(5)

List of Images

Figure 1: (cover page): UA Flight 175 hits WTC south tower 9-11 (Robert J. Fisch, 2001). Retrieved

from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11786300

Figure 2: Total immigrant visa issuances (Bureau of Consular Affairs, 1991-2019). Retrieved from

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-statistics.html

Figure 3: Immigrant visa issuances to Muslim-majority countries (Bureau of Consular Affairs,

1991-2019). Retrieved from https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-statistics.html

Figure 4: Immigrant visa issuances to countries without a Muslim majority (Bureau of Consular

Affairs, 1991-2019). Retrieved from

Figure 5: Total non-immigrant visa issuances (Bureau of Consular Affairs, 1991-2019). Retrieved

from https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-statistics.html

Figure 6: Non-immigrant visa issuances to Muslim-majority countries (Bureau of Consular Affairs,

1991-2019). Retrieved from https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-statistics.html

Figure 7: Non-immigrant visa issuances to countries without a Muslim majority (Bureau of

Consular Affairs, 1991-2019). Retrieved from

List of Tables

Table 1: Immigrant visa issuances to nationals of Muslim-majority countries and countries without

a Muslim majority (Bureau of Consular Affairs, 1991-2019). Retrieved from https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-statistics.html

Table 2: Relative changes in immigrant visa issuances to nationals of Muslim-majority countries

and countries without a Muslim majority, as compared to the previous year (Bureau of Consular Affairs, 1991-2019). Retrieved from

Table 3: Non-immigrant visa issuances to nationals of Muslim-majority countries and countries

without a Muslim majority (Bureau of Consular Affairs, 1991-2019). Retrieved from https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-statistics.html

Table 4: Relative changes in non-immigrant visa issuances to nationals of Muslim-majority

countries and countries without a Muslim majority, as compared to the previous year (Bureau of Consular Affairs, 1991-2019). Retrieved from

(8)

1. Introduction

On September 11, 2001, only 17 minutes passed between the initial hijacking of American Airlines plane 11 and the moment it hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center, only 56 minutes went by between the crash and the collapse of the tower, and another 29 minutes before the North Tower came down too (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004). This 102 minutes have now passed almost 20 years ago, but the events are still deeply engraved in the memories of many people around the world. In a matter of hours the attacks on the Twin Towers became the top one global news item, with dramatic visuals and heart-breaking stories of horror and heroes. Then came the annual State of the Union Address of January 29, 2002, by President George W. Bush. In this emotional speech Bush announces the so-called ‘war on terror’ and blames the states of Iraq, Iran and South Korea for supporting terrorists and for possessing weapons of mass destruction (Bush, 2001-2008). He also stresses the importance of protecting rights for people from all nationalities, and he explicitly mentions Muslim people in doing so;

‘America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere... America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world, including the Islamic world…’ (Bush, 2001-2008).

However, liberty and justice are also two values that can be applied to global mobility. In a world that is more and more bound together by globalisation, large differences seem to exist in the opportunities to become mobile between people with different nationalities due to various liberal and restrictive migration policies (Mau et al., 2015).

After 9/11, public and political discourse regarding Muslims changed in a more negative direction due to an increased linking of Islam with national security issues in Western countries (Fetzer & Soper, 2003), (Allen & Nielsen, 2002). Since the public is what elects governments and what makes up the constituency of political parties, it makes sense that public discourse influences the development of policies. Therefore, in this bachelor thesis an attempt will be made to elucidate the effects the September 11 attacks have had on the visa issuances in the United States.

1.1 Social and scientific relevance

The social relevance this problem begins with global visa inequalities. The foundation of current differences in mobility levels is based on international visa regulations between countries, and the evolution of these relations over time. According to an analysis of different visa waivers by Mau et al. (2015), global mobility has increased in the last few years due to more visa-free travel regulations. This is said to be caused by globalisation, which Mau et al. define as ‘ an increase and

intensification of cross-border transactions’ (Mau et al., 2015, pp. 1193). Simultaneously, it has led

to more inequality in visa regulations between people with different nationalities. This mobility divide shows a dichotomy between the more privileged OECD-countries and the disadvantaged non-OECD, with very asymmetrical visa relations between states (Mau et al., 2015). It is interesting to note that these OECD-countries involve no states with a Muslim-majority population, with the exception of Turkey (OECD, n.d.). Therefore, it is interesting to find out more about who these inequalities affect.

Bhattacharya (2010) discusses how 9/11 changed the public perceptions of Muslims in the United States. The general focus of foreign policy is shaped by national interests that have been the driving force behind it, such as national security. Bhattacharya also states that 9/11 has changed

(9)

the face of terror to that of radical Islamists, which leaves little room for other kinds of terrorists in the media and public discourse. She stresses that public discourse and foreign policy can’t be seen separated from each other; after all, in a democracy it is the public that is responsible for electing who is in power (Bhattacharya, 2010).

An important catalysator in shaping the public opinion is the mass media. Kidwai (2010) states that after 9/11 the US media tended to connect Islam and terrorism in many headlines. In these articles, Islam is often wrongly represented (Kidwai, 2010). Bhattacharya (2010) emphasizes that the US media tends to focus on a deviation of Islam, rather than to use an objective image of the religion. This deviation called ‘Muslim fundamentalism’ shapes foreign policy and security goals, while it contains is a very limited group of people (Kidwai, 2010). Kidwai explains how this group filled the gap of a main enemy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The mass media used many frames in articles that spoke of Islam. Kidwai (2010) provides the following examples: Islam as an enemy to the US, Islam as linked to terrorism, the Muslim as a potential suspect on US soil, all variations of Islam as the same religion, Islam as anti-democratic, the Middle East as ‘true’ Islamic region, and Islam as intolerant to other religions. These frames, of course didn’t have a very positive influence on the image of Islam in the US public (Kidwai, 2010).

Therefore, the 9/11 attacks seem to have influenced the general image of Muslims in the US in a negative way. Also, public opinion is something that shapes national policies. In the face of the global mobility inequalities, it would therefore be interesting to conduct research on the visible effects of the 9/11 attacks on US migration policy by comparing the mobility of Muslim-majority country citizens to other migrants. Since these people were framed as the largest risk to national security after September 11, it would make sense that the attacks have influenced the mobility for these migrants the most.

Not much previous research has been conducted on the influence of the 9/11 attacks on global mobility inequalities, which explains the scientific relevance of this paper. A research by Neiman & Swagel (2009) criticizes the general assumption that 9/11 has negatively influenced the amount of visitors to the US because of stricter visa policies. They argue that because the entry reduction has been the most significant for travellers that don’t need to require a visa (because of the Visa Waiver Program that will be discussed in Chapter 4), the decrease in travellers has not been caused by stricter visa policies. Their data includes both short-term business and leisure travel to the country, but leaves out students and work-based migration (Neiman & Swagel, 2009). This leaves out interesting categories, since one of the 9/11 hijackers entered the US on a student visa (Eldridge et al., 2004).

Research has also been conducted on the effects on public attitudes toward Muslims in both Europe and the US. An example of the impacts of the September 11 attacks on public opinions, in this case in Europe, can be seen in the research by Fetzer & Soper (2003). Their survey used interviews from right before 9/11 to compare these with interviews from right after the attacks. Their research showed that 9/11 partly affected public opinions in Europe; in Great Britain support significantly rose from 19.9 to 25.6 percent for cutting state funding of Islamic schools. In Germany and France similar effects were observed, but these did not prove to be statistically significant. Another interesting finding was that less respondents identified themselves as Muslim after 9/11 than before, which the survey explains to be caused by a rise in attention for Islamist movements in societies, and in hate crimes on Muslim inhabitants in Western Europe (Fetzer & Soper, 2003). In this research the focus lies on the attitude of European inhabitants toward Muslims. Allen & Nielson (2002), like Fetzer & Soper (2003), conclude that Islamophobia levels in Europe have risen since 9/11, but their research also involves national politics. Their

(10)

operationalisation of the effects of 9/11 on attitudes toward Muslims involves a few indicators; acts of violence and aggression against Muslims, practices for reducing these, and the reactions of political leaders. These are investigated within individual European countries. The research concludes that Islamophobic ideas already existed within society before the September 11 attacks, but after 9/11 public awareness of Muslim practices rose and made the Islamophobia more visible. In some European countries it is also backed by right-wing politicians, which makes it more legitimate. We see a reluctance of accepting visible expressions of Islam, such as the wearing of hijabs and facial hair (Allen & Nielsen, 2002). For the US, this same phenomenon is described by Shipoli (2018). He states that after the 9/11 attacks, a rise in Islamophobia could be seen in the public opinions in the United States, and that the events created more alienation from people with different cultures among Americans.

So it has been discussed that the media can impact policies and the legitimation of political interventions. Therefore, it is possible that the aftermath of the September 11 attacks has impacted visa regulations in the US. Not much research has been conducted on the effect on visa issuances in general, but Johnson (2018) focusses on the effects of 9/11 on student mobility in particular. This statistical research concludes that there was no significant drop in the total amount of international students to the US after the September 11 attacks. However, when looking at individual regions, a decline in visa issuances for Middle Eastern students does prove to be significant. Before the attacks an average of 1,476.70 visas were issued to the different Middle Eastern countries in 2000 and in the years after 9/11 this amount dropped drastically to 867.83 in 2002, 777.04 in 2003, 792.48 in 2004 and 919.43 in 2005 (Johnson, 2018).

The existing literature shows a lot of evidence for the impact 9/11 has had on public opinions regarding Muslims. A knowledge gap exists in to what extent these changes in discourse have had a significant impact on the visa issuances for both Muslim migrants and migrants to the US in general. A statistical analysis of changes in visa issuances over the years before and after 9/11 might provide interesting insights in the relationship between 9/11 and US visa issuances.

1.2 Research aims and question

The goal of this thesis is to contribute to existing literature and fill the gap of knowledge about whether the 9/11 attacks have had an influence on the mobility opportunities of migrants from different origins. This will be examined for two groups; migrants from Muslim-majority countries, and migrants from countries without a Muslim majority. The main question that will be answered in this thesis is therefore:

‘To what extent can the impacts of the September 11 attacks be seen in US visa issuances to migrants from Muslim-majority countries, as compared to migrants from other countries?’

This research exists of two parts; a descriptive analysis of how national policies that affect migration matters have developed in the US, and a more statistical research on how trends in visa issuances have evolved over the years for migrants with different nationalities. Therefore, before focussing on the main question, the following sub-questions will be discussed first:

- How have migration and counterterrorism policies evolved in the US over the years previous to and after the September 11 attacks?

- What trends are visible in the visa issuances of the US to migrants from both Muslim-majority countries and countries without a Muslim Muslim-majority over the years previous to and after the September 11 attacks?

(11)

2. Theory

Of course a lot of theory has already been established on the different concepts that will be discussed in this research and the various relations between them. Therefore, in this chapter some of the main sources will be summarized. From this, a conceptual model will be drawn.

2.1 Literature review

Some existing literature will be discussed on the development of global visa policies, how events such as terrorist attacks can influence mobility patterns through media and discourse, and on the effects of the 9/11 attacks on US politics and society.

2.1.1. Visa functions and the evolution of global mobility

Firstly, an overview will be provided of the uses of visa regulations and how they have changed in general over time. A paper by Czaika et al. (2017) discusses the two main tasks visa regulations fulfil. Firstly, visas are used as a government instrument to maintain a certain population size and to control migration flows. In this way certain types of migrants that are preferable can be attracted, while less valued migrants can be kept out. An example of this is the so-called ‘Muslim Ban’ by US President Trump on migrants from the certain Muslim-majority countries. This ban was based on the supposed security risks of accepting migrants from these countries. On the other hand, visas can also be used to make a statement about political relationships with other countries (Czaika et al., 2017). These instrumental uses for visa regulations are also discussed by Neumayer (2005). Like Czaika et al. (2017) he mentions the attraction of migrants of preference, not only because of political reasons but on economic grounds too. He stressed, like Mau et al. (2015), that the more privileged migrants are those from OECD-countries and the most restricted ones are those with a passport from a poor, authoritarian or (post-)conflict state. He also names concerns about national security as a reason for visa restrictions (Neumayer, 2005).

However, these visa restrictions are not static and constantly change over time. A research by de Haas, Natter & Vezzoli (2018) describes how we can see a global trend towards less restrictive migration policy since the end of the Second World War. In their analysis, migration policy has been split into two categories; restrictive and liberal policies. Of these categories, more developments can be seen toward the second one. In general, entry and integration policy has become less restrictive, where exit and border control policy has become more restrictive (de Haas, Natter & Vezzoli, 2018). When looking at the US in specific, different periods can be distinguished. Between 1945 and 1970 we see an accelerated liberalization of migration policy. This is mostly because migration policy moves away from a ‘whites only’-preference. In 1965, the national-origins quota is removed that used to favour migrants from Europe. After this we see a decelerating liberalization with a larger proportion of more restrictive policies until the mid-1990s. This has to do with the Oil Crisis and economic recession that led to more unemployment in the US. Then we see a balance between restrictive and liberal policy developments until 9/11. The main reason for the relative increase in restrictive policies is the unauthorized migration across the Mexican border (de Haas, Natter & Vezzoli, 2018). Next to these changes, the research notes that migrant selection has increased in favour of workers (mostly the high-skilled ones) and students, and at the expense of irregular migrants, family-based migration and asylum seekers (de Haas, Natter & Vezzoli, 2018).

In Chapter 1.1 the research of Mau et al. (2015) has been discussed, which concludes that global mobility has increased over the years, but that inequalities in mobility levels between inhabitants of different countries have risen too. Czaika et al. (2017) criticize this conclusion by Mau et al.,

(12)

because it is said to be too simplistic. In reality, the division has a more multi-polar nature rather than a dichotomous one. According to their research, visa-free travel regulations are heavily influenced by the existence of regional blocs, like the European Union or the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) (Czaika et al., 2017).

2.1.2. What shapes foreign policy

Such changes in visa restrictions are the effect of national policy changes. Like mentioned earlier, policy doesn’t evolve detached from public opinions, since political parties in democracies need to maintain their support (Bhattacharya, 2010). The next step is therefore to look at how these public opinions are shaped.

Firstly, there is the influence by political actors. According to a book by Shipoli (2018) on how US foreign policy is established, public discourse can be changed entirely over the course of one president’s mandate. He uses the notion of a foreign policy doctrine to describe this vision on foreign policy during one presidency. In his book a foreign policy doctrine is described as ‘a belief

system and statement on foreign policy, made by nation’s chief executives, chief diplomats, or political thinkers.’ (Shipoli, 2018, pp. 18). These foreign policy doctrines can be recognized

through analysing speeches and other types of discourse used by US presidents (Shipoli, 2018). He also explains how this works the other way around; public opinion has a lot of influence on decision-making by political actors. This is because of two reasons: first, politicians want to be re-elected, and second, because they need the support for pursuing their political agenda (Shipoli, 2018).

Another influential factor on public views is the mass media. A research by Smith (2013) has been conducted on the change of public opinions on Muslims after 9/11, and how these have been influenced by the media. On the short term his outcomes where quite counterintuitive; right after 9/11 public opinions on Muslims in the US were more positive than ever. He explains this by stating that in the beginning the media was actively protecting Muslims by contradicting these prejudices (Smith, 2013). This attitude can also be seen in the Address to the Joint Session of the 107th_{Congress by President Bush of September 20}th_{, 2001, which was given shortly after the}

attacks. Here Bush states:

‘The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy

is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.’ (Bush, 2001-2008,

pp. 68)

After 2002 the media put less effort in doing so, which has led to more fear of Islam in the US. This is partly caused by a lack of knowledge about Muslim culture. Islam is often linked to the idea that it favours violence. So after this relaxation, the general public started to question Bush’s statements about the peaceful character of Islam (Smith, 2013). As mentioned before in Chapter 1, Kidwai (2010) supports this stance and also explains how the US media tend to link Islam with terrorism in their headlines, which indirectly creates certain associations. Shipoli (2018) explains this media influence; the media is what provides the US inhabitants with information about threats that are not directly visible to themselves. Mass media is what prioritizes issues in general discourse, brings them to the political agenda, and challenges the policies of the government in office (Shipoli, 2018). Smith (2013) also concludes his article with a warning about the impacts of framing. Benford & Snow (2000) explain how this framing works and define it as ‘an active,

processual phenomenon that implies agency and contention at the level of reality construction’

(Benford & Snow, 2000, pp. 614). So, a certain version of the truth is purposely shaped to serve a certain actor.

(13)

The September 11 attacks have been highly visualized in the media and therefore have had a large impact. The post-9/11 discourse on the ‘war on terror’ by President Bush (Bush, 2001-2008) that is mentioned in the introduction of this thesis, was used to create political support for the Iraq invasion shortly after the 9/11 attacks (Powell, 2011). The article also states that the US mass media has created a general idea of a clash between East and West; the Oriental against the Occidental. This has led to a reduction of the diverse Muslim identity to just a few general aspects that are often associated with negative values, and a general fear of terrorism linked to this Muslim identity (Powell, 2011). Vultee (2011) also discusses the influence the media have on public opinions. He explains this through the concept of securitization, for which he uses the definition by Buzan et al. (1998) of securitization as:

‘the designation of an existential threat requiring emergency action or special measures and the

acceptance of that designation by a significant audience’. (Buzan et al., 1998, pp. 27)

Vultee (2011) focusses on the media frame that links national security to the protection of the national identity, which can turn migration into a threat. After 9/11 three aspects have made the mass media to move away from objectivity about their reporting; the attacks were a great tragedy on a national level, discourse spoke of terrorism as a public danger, and the attacks were made into an issue of national security (Vultee, 2011).

2.1.3. The ‘terrorist’ frame

A frame that is often used in the media is the one attached to the label of ‘terrorism’. But what is ‘terrorism’ exactly? Freedman & Kishan Thussu (2012) argue that this is a difficult question to answer, since there is no universal definition for the notion. The reason for this remarkable fact can be summarized in the saying ‘one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter’. This means that different actors have different interests in giving a definition of terrorism. Common elements that return in various definitions are ‘violence’, ‘politics’, ‘fear’, and ‘threat’. However, these aspects don’t give any mention of who the aggressors and victims are of terrorist attacks (Freedman & Kishan Thussu, 2012).

This lack of a generally accepted definition of the word, makes terrorism an easy target for framing processes. So, by creating a certain version of the truth about an event, the goals of the actor that is in control of the framing process can be served. Bhatia (2005) states that the use of the word ‘terrorist’ for the opponent implies the illegality of the other actor, which automatically makes him or her illegitimate. This also means that the state can justify more extreme measures against such an actor. When using the ‘terrorist’ frame, these measures can even include those that would normally be unacceptable, since terrorism is framed as a huge threat to national security. These extraordinary measures may involve air strikes, torture, or captivity without a trial. This is an example of the securitization as defined by Buzan et al. (1998) earlier in this chapter. The other function framing fulfils is the gathering of supporters for the actor that uses the frame. By framing the opponent as the ‘bad guy’, this implies that your own party consists of the ‘good guys’ (Bhatia, 2005). This process can be seen as the negative variation of the concept of ‘othering’, where ‘the other’ is conceptualized as being different than ‘the self’. This polarized idea is created through discourse, and the use of images and symbols. Othering by government officials can be used to legitimize policy decisions over alternatives (de Buitrago, 2012).

After the 9/11 attacks, framing has been visible in how Islam was defined as a problematic religion, and in the creation of public support for the invasion of Iraq. The research of Boyle & Mower (2018) further elaborates on how terrorism is framed by using the framing of terrorist group ISIS as case study. Their analysis confirms that the two Western newspapers, The New York

(14)

Times and the Daily Mail, provide much more attention to terrorism as a topic and use labels such as ‘terrorist’ more often than the Arab newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat (Boyle & Mower, 2018). This shows that the frame is much more popular in the Western media.

However, without a universal definition for what terrorism exactly is, actors can still formulate their own definition of the word. In the United States Code, the US government uses the following definition for terrorism:

‘activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, and that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.’ (Office of the Law

Revision Council, 1988, Chapter 113B, §2331)

This definition places the US in a central position. However, Freedman & Kishan Thussu (2012) argue that while terrorism remains a larger concern in countries in the West, most terrorist attacks in the past decade have occurred in the South. Therefore, it is remarkable to note that Western, and in particular American, media provides the dominant global perception on terrorism. Freedman & Kishan Thussu (2012) argue that this is partly because terrorism in the US has a much more visible character than terrorist attacks in the Middle East. Powell (2011) explains this effect by stating that people are drawn to sensational media coverage, which enlarges the effects on public discourse of visual drama. This also explains the symbiotic relationship between terrorism and media in general; media uses the dramatic images of terrorist attacks to attract audiences, whereas terrorists on the other hand use this media attention to spread their message (Powell, 2011). By spreading messages, the media create a general idea of terrorism (Freedman & Kishan Thussu, 2012). Therefore media can, sometimes unintentionally, set the public agenda (Powell, 2011).

2.1.4. The purposes of terrorist attacks

So terrorists can use media intentionally to reach certain goals. Therefore, for the development of counterterrorism policies, it is important to know what terrorists are trying to achieve by attacking. This might prevent the actors that apply counterterrorist strategies from doing exactly what it is that terrorists want them to do. An article by Kydd and Walter (2006) discusses five categories of goals terrorist try to reach with their activities. Firstly, there is the goal of regime change, where the terrorists want to replace the current government. Secondly, there is territorial change, which means the terrorist organisation wants to establish a new independent state within a specific territory. Thirdly, there is policy change. This category includes lesser demands of the government in power and only wants to force the government into changing certain policies. A fourth goal is social control. Terrorist attacks are then used in order to constrain the behaviour of certain individuals, such as political leaders. The last category is status quo maintenance. Terrorist organizations with this goal strive to maintain the existing order against parties that mean to change it (Kydd & Walter, 2006).

With these different goals come different strategies that are also discussed within the same article. Kydd and Walter (2006) name five types. Attrition is the strategy used to persuade the enemy, often the government in place, of the damage that can be done by the terrorist organization in case the government refuses to meet their demands. Intimidation involves threatening the local population with violent attacks in order to gain social control. By provocation terrorists can attempt to use attacks in order to make the government respond in a harmful way. When the government decides to start air strikes on terrorist targets, this might also

(15)

involve civilian casualties. These can be used as an argument for the illegitimacy of that government, since it then fails to protect its own citizens. Spoiling is the strategy of using attacks to prevent the own organization of coming to a peace agreement with the enemy government. By attacking again, terrorists show they are untrustworthy and peace will be prevented. This makes that the terrorists can continue fighting for their goal. The last strategy mentioned is outbidding. This can happen when two parties compete for leadership within the same territory. By acting aggressively, an organization can try to show the local inhabitants that they are the most powerful actor (Kydd & Walter, 2006).

Kydd and Walter (2006) argue that the best counterstrategies in the case of attrition involve targeted retaliation against terrorist leaders, preventing further attacks by security measures, and minimizing the psychological costs by preventing overreaction to the attack. However, they also note that hunting down leaders might facilitate a favourable climate for provocation. To counter provocation, the best strategy is to prevent collateral damage when going after the attackers (Kydd & Walter, 2006). In Chapter 4 we will see whether these counter strategies have been used by the US government, in an analysis of the security enhancements, development of migration policy and military reactions after the 9/11 attacks.

2.2 Conceptual model

The existing literature can be summarized in a conceptual model. It shows the idea that the September 11 attacks have changed the content of the US mass media. Smith (2013) explains how the media was very protective of Muslim inhabitants in the first year after the attacks, but relaxed these efforts after 2002. The 9/11 attacks also impacted political discourse, which can be seen in the various speeches Bush gives afterwards (Bush, 2001-2008). Through framing, an active construction of reality (Benford & Snow, 2000), and securitization, the portrayal of an issue as a threat to national security that requires extraordinary measures (Buzan et al., 1998), the media and politicians influence the public attitudes of US inhabitants; in this case the public’s tolerance of migrants. This can be seen in the research by Smith (2013), that shows how the relaxation of the mass media’s efforts to show Islam in a positive light has led to more Islamophobia in the US. The influence of politics on public opinions is discussed by Shipoli (2018), who states that the policy doctrine of a single US president can change public discourse. This influence also works the other way around. Bhattacharya (2010) points to the co-evolvement of public and political discourse, that exists because of the dependence of political parties on their constituencies in order to get re-elected. This political discourse is what in turn influences policy developments, including those in the field of migration politics. By the tightening or relaxation of migration policies, the total amount of visa issuances could be influenced.

(16)

In this research I will examine whether the changes in media portrayals of Muslims, public attitudes on migrants, and shifts in political discourse after 9/11, have indeed influenced both migration policy and the issuance of visas that is linked to it.

(17)

3. Methodology

In this chapter the different steps are described that have been taken while conducting this research, consisting of a description of the research strategy that was applied, the data collection, the analysis, and the writing of this thesis.

As in every research, the first step was to provide a background sketch of already existing literature in Chapter 2 in order to draw a conceptual model. Since this thesis focusses on how visa regulations can be used in order to achieve certain goals, I first moved to the literature on the functions of visas and on the changes these visas have caused in mobility levels for different categories of countries. Also, visa regulations are a part of foreign policy, and therefore I have examined previous knowledge on factors that shape these foreign policies. Since a close relationship exists between foreign policy and public opinions, legitimation plays an important role in the process of policy development too. In order to be able to implement or adapt a certain policy, this has to be perceived as ‘right’ by the general public. Therefore, I examined legitimation processes, and the tools that both politicians and the mass media use to steer these. Lastly, I believe the 9/11-hijackers wanted to reach a certain political goal by their actions rather than using violence as an end in itself. Jackson et al. (2011) discuss two different approaches to terrorism studies. Where orthodox studies of terrorism focus on terrorism as an objective act by a group of irrational non-state actors, the critical perspective investigates the context in which the violence is used and how labelling an act as ‘terrorist’ can be used to legitimize certain measures taken by the state to combat these terrorists (Jackson et al., 2011). In this thesis I have tried to apply a critical perspective on terrorism. Therefore, in the literature review I also shed a light on the different goals terrorists attempt to achieve through their actions. This literature is retrieved by consulting both Google Scholar and the online library of the Radboud University of Nijmegen (RUQuest) for scientific articles. The retrieved literature has been used to provide definitions for the different concepts and to explain the relations between them. After doing so, a conceptual model was drawn from the findings.

After a theoretical foundation had been established, an analysis of the different US migration and security policies was conducted and processed into a timeline of policy amendments in Chapter 4, in order to answer the first sub-question: ‘How have migration and counterterrorism policies in

the US evolved over the years previous to and after the September 11 attacks?’. Information on

these policies was collected by consulting the website of the US Congress (www.congress.gov). This contains both summaries by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and full texts of all policies that are introduced, that passed the House or Senate and that are signed into law. I have focussed on the changes various acts brought about, and which types of migrants these particularly affected. Next to these policy assessments a general background of important events, societal developments, general political discourse, and foreign policy doctrines that have influenced these policies at the time of their development, was provided. This was done in order to provide a clearer image of public and political opinions and discourse over the years, because these are very influential in the process of policy developments. I also focussed on which categories of migrants have been affected by each specific policy, since this was important when the policy changes were used to explain issuances to migrants of the different categories we see in Chapter 5. The timeline was split into three main parts: the situation in the years before 9/11, the 9/11 attacks themselves and the immediate government response, and the developments that have taken place after the attacks. This was done because differences are visible in the types of policies during these three periods. The period after 9/11 has also been divided into the subsequent presidencies during this period of George W. Bush, Barack H. Obama and Donald J.

(18)

Trump, since these three Presidents have all applied quite a different approach on migration matters during their administration. Later on, this timeline was used as a basis to explain visa issuances to migrants from different categories of countries. While examining the political response to 9/11, I again attempt to take a critical perspective on (counter)terrorism. I agree with Jackson et al. (2011) that we should move away from a focus on how only non-state actors can engage in terrorist activities. Terrorism as a strategy used by government actors is often much more destructive, since state actors possess much more resources and legitimacy than non-state actors. Taking this into account, I have provided a critical perspective on the consequences of the ‘war on terror’-approach we see emerging right after the 9/11 attacks.

In Chapter 5 I move to the second sub-question: ‘What trends are visible in the visa issuances of

the US to migrants from both Muslim-majority countries and countries without a Muslim majority over the years previous to and after the September 11 attacks?’. This was done by collecting

information on visa issuances from the US Department of State - Bureau of Consular Affairs (1991-2019), which publishes an annual report on the amount of visa issuances per country. The reports are published every fiscal year, which runs from October 1st until September 30th (United States Senate, n.d.). Therefore, 9/11 has taken place right at the end of fiscal year 2001, which means that any possible impacts on visa issuances should be visible as from fiscal year 2002. In previous research by Johnson (2018) we saw that the effects of the 9/11 attacks on student visa issuances in the US were visible for Middle Eastern students in the period between fiscal year 2002 and 2005 (Johnson, 2018). In this paper the research period has been expanded to ten years before the attacks, so starting in 1991, and to the present, with the latest data being available on fiscal year 2019. This was done to see whether possible increases or decreases of visa issuances after 9/11 have been part of a more long-term trend, which might be expected because no evidence was found that public perceptions of Muslims in the US have fully recovered after the 9/11 attacks. The reports of the Bureau of Consular Affairs (1991-2019) were written per continent and per country. The data is also divided into two types of visa issuances; immigrant and non-immigrant categories. Since these are very different types of migration (one could mean permanent residency while the other is of a more temporary character) it is likely that we see differences in changes in issuances of visas from these two categories too. This made it worth to investigate shifts for these two categories separately.

The categorization of the countries into the two categories that was used can be seen in Appendix 1 and 2. These two groups were chosen, because the existing literature showed a very plausible impact of 9/11 on perceptions of Islam and Muslim people in the US. Therefore, one could expect to see a difference in the effects of the new policies developed after the attacks on migrants from Muslim-majority countries, in comparison to migrants from other countries. The category of Muslim-majority countries (Appendix 2) was established by using data from the CIA World Factbook (n.d.) on the various religions per country, and on the percentage of the population that is part of those religions. A majority of Muslims as it is used in this thesis means that at least 50% of the country’s population is known to be a Muslim according to the CIA World Factbook data. Some additional remarks on this category can be made. In the dataset of the Bureau of Consular Affairs, the Western Sahara is counted to be a part of Morocco, and Kosovo to be a part of Serbia. For the Western Sahara, this does not influence the research, since Morocco is included in the Muslim-majority category as well. Kosovo does have a Muslim-majority, but since Serbia has a much larger population without a Muslim-majority, Kosovo was not counted as part of the Muslim-majority category. Also, Palestine is not a separate category in the reports of the Bureau of Consular Affairs, and both the Gaza Strip and West Bank are counted as parts of Israel, which means that these migrants are also excluded from the Muslim-majority category. In the first year

(19)

of the dataset, we lack data on issuances to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, since this was the last year these countries were counted as part of the U.S.S.R. In 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed and as from fiscal year 1992 we can obtain data on issuances to the individual countries. The situation for Bosnia and Herzegovina is similar, since it became independent of Yugoslavia in the beginning of the second half of fiscal year 1992. Therefore, the data on issuances to this country might not be reliable for fiscal year 1992, but will be later on. As from fiscal year 1992, this category consists of 48 countries with a Muslim-majority. The other category of countries, the ones without a Muslim majority (Appendix 1), consists of all countries left in the data of the Bureau of Consular Affairs when extracting the Muslim-majority ones. It was not really possible to name the total number of countries this category consists of between 1991 and 2019, since many countries became independent or territories shifted to different states. However, since the territories of the Muslim-majority countries stayed mostly the same after fiscal year 1992, the total amount of issuances to the countries without a Muslim majority was still quite reliable as an indicator for possible decreases and increases.

Also, the quantitative data for these two categories was compared to see whether there is a significant difference between Muslim countries and non-Muslim countries in the amount of visas that were obtained every year. The total amount of issuances to all countries was used as a reference category. Again, this was done for both immigrant and non-immigrant visa categories. In order to calculate the issuances to Muslim-majority country migrants, a new table was drawn with the data on issuances to these different countries over the period of 1991-2019 together with the sum of these issuances per year. I did not only focus on the absolute changes, but I have also examined the relative changes. The Muslim-majority category consists of far less countries, which means that the overall amount of issuances to this category has been far lower. This caused the absolute amount to be of little help in comparing issuances for migrants of the two categories. To solve this issue, annual changes have also been calculated as relative numbers. This was done by using percentages of the issuances of the previous year. Any differences found have been described in a written comparison in this chapter. Also, graphs were drawn for the absolute data on the total amount of issuances to both visa categories, and for the issuances to migrants from the two categories of countries. This was done in order to create a clear visual image of the changes every year.

Then, a general conclusion was drawn in Chapter 6 on what we can learn from the comparison of the examined policy changes and visa issuance data analysis I wrote in Chapter 5. This was done in order to answer the main question of this thesis; ‘To what extent can the impacts of the

September 11 attacks be seen in US visa issuances to migrants from Muslim-majority countries, as compared to migrants from other countries?’. In this chapter I explain whether or not my findings

substantiate the hypothesis that 9/11 has had a different impact on migrants from Muslim-majority countries. Lastly, in Chapter 7 a discussion was written on the limitations of this research and on recommendations for further research possibilities and for the development of policies in the future.

(20)

4. Policy development in the years before and after

9/11

In this chapter a timeline is set up of the different policies on migration and counterterrorism in the years before and after the September 11 attacks. Also, a background was sketched of the most important events that shaped the political agenda at different time periods in the history of the United States.

4.1 Migration policy before 9/11

Before the 9/11 attacks policies on migration were already prevalent in the US. A significant amendment to earlier policies was made by an act introduced into the House of Representatives in 1965 with the name ‘an Act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other

purposes’, or the Hart-Celler Act (Celler, 1965). The act removed previously existing discrimination

of migrants that didn’t come from Northwest Europe and contained the statement:

‘No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.’ (Celler,

1965, pp. 911)

It did contain restrictions on the number of immigrants, but these were no longer based on people’s nationalities. Priority was now given to relatives of US citizens or permanent residents, and to skilled migrants (Celler, 1965). The act has been approved and was signed into law that same year. This is still in the period that de Haas, Natter & Vezzoli (2018) describe as accelerating liberalization, in which US visa policies become less strict.

In 1973 the Oil Crisis strongly influenced migration discourse. The high unemployment rates in the US after the economic recession put an end to the active recruiting of new migrant workers by the government. The US even started assisting migrants in returning to their country of origin. This was the beginning of the decelerating liberalization of migration policy that would continue until the mid-1990s (de Haas, Natter & Vezzoli, 2018).

In 1980 the Refugee Act came with some amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act (National Archives Foundation, n.d.). The act changed the definition of a refugee to a person with a well-founded fear of persecution, so this would be in line with the UN-definition. It also raised the maximum number for refugee admissions from 17,400 to 50,000 per year. The underlying cause for this change was the end of the Vietnam War, when many refugees from Asia fled to the US. The act was signed into law by President Carter in March 1980 (National Archives Foundation, n.d.).

Another amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act came with the Immigration Reform

and Control Act of 1986. This act made it illegal for Americans to employ any migrant without a

work permit. In doing so, it provided a legal basis for penalties against such employers. On the other hand, the act legalized some migrants that had entered the country in an unlawful way before 1982, that had not committed any crimes, and that had some knowledge of the US. Next to this, it legalized some undocumented migrants that came to the US for seasonal agricultural work (Congressional Research Service, 1986). Part of this act was the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which started as a pilot program in 1986. This initiative allowed migrants from certain countries that were on good terms with the US to travel to the US for a short vacation or business trip

(21)

without having to obtain a visa first. Of course both the country and the individual migrant had to meet certain requirements (Wasem, 2017). This program would include up to eight countries and was meant to last for three years. Visitors needed to have non-refundable roundtrip tickets and couldn’t stay within the US for more than 90 days (Congressional Research Service, 1986). While initially the program was meant to be only temporary, many amendments would be passed later on to extent it and to remove the limited number of countries that could participate in it. Also, new requirements were added (Siskin, 2011). These requirements nowadays include that the country must have a non-immigrant visa refusal rate of less than 3%, meet certain passport conditions like the use of biometric ways of identification, screen all travellers that mean to make use of the VWP, and accept all travellers back that are removed from the US (Kolker & Platzer, 2020).

Another important document prior to 9/11 was the Immigration Act of 1990 (Congressional Research Service, 1990). At this time President George H.W. Bush was in office. This act contained the first amendments on migration policy in 25 years, after the establishment of the previously mentioned Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It removed the initial limit of eight countries that could participate in the Visa Waiver Program. By then the participants added since the initiation were: the UK, Japan, France, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Italy and the Netherlands. Quickly after passing this act, more countries were added in 1991; Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, San Marino and Spain (Kolker & Platzer, 2020). It also provided a higher ceiling for the total number of visas per country that could be given to immigrants based on employment or (immediate) family-relations. This meant that from now on 7% of the total amount of visas for a country would be issued in these two categories (Congressional Research Service, 1990). For family-based immigration 465,000 visas are reserved each following fiscal year. As from 1995, this number would be raised to 480,000 visas on an annual basis (Leiden & Neal, 1990). It also provided so-called ‘diversity visas’ for immigrants from countries that were underrepresented in the US (by less than 50,000 immigrants over the last five years). In this amendment we can recognise the earlier mentioned visa function discussed in Czaika et al. (2017) of controlling migration flows for political or economic reasons. The Immigration Act also included new visa categories. The employment-based migrants were now divided into five categories instead of two (Congressional Research Service, 1990). These categories consist of: priority workers (high-skilled migrants such as professors or athletes), professionals with advanced degrees, skilled workers (like migrants with a bachelor’s degree), special immigrants (important political or religious figures) and investors (immigrants that have invested over a million US Dollar in companies that provide US citizens with employment). For each of the first three categories 40,000 visas were reserved on an annual basis. For the last two groups this number held 10,000 visas (Leiden & Neal, 1990). The act also mentioned legal grounds for the exclusion of migrants that (were suspected to) take part in terrorist activities. These activities include hijacking, killing or threatening to kill a person in order to persuade another of your opinion, assassinations, membership of a terrorist organization, helping to support terrorists, and preparing terrorist attacks (Congressional Research Service, 1990). This is an example of using visa restrictions in order to enhance national security, as mentioned in Neumayer (2005).

In January 1993, Bill Clinton succeeded George H.W. Bush as the President of the US. At this time, the Cold War had ended two years ago with the collapse of the U.S.S.R. in 1991, but as a leftover fear of foreign ideas, like communism, was still dominant in the public rhetoric (Shipoli, 2018). Clinton would largely keep Islam out of his discourse during his years in office. His leading foreign policy doctrine was that of interventionism, determined by the idea that the US had a duty to put

(22)

an end to foreign rights violations by actors abroad. This could be seen in his interventions in both Yugoslavia and the Horn of Africa (Shipoli, 2018).

In 1993, a bombing of the World Trade Center by Islamic fundamentalists took place when President Clinton had just started in office about a month ago. On February 26th_{, explosives went}

off in a parking garage, which resulted in an enormous crater at the ground floor of the complex. Many people got trapped within the elevators of the buildings. The attack resulted in six deaths and over a thousand injured people. Luckily, it failed to make the building collapse. The rebuilding of the World Trade Center took almost two years after that (9/11 Memorial & Museum, n.d.). Seven men were arrested and convicted to a long prison sentence. Only one suspect has never been arrested (CNN, 2020). According to Kidwai (2010) these attacks delivered a shock big enough to be the beginning of a shift in the public perceptions of Muslims in the country. The media often connected the attacks with Islam in their headlines, which created a strong association of Islam with the bombing (Kidwai, 2010). Two years later, a larger terrorist attack took place on US soil. On April 19th _{1995, a man named Timothy McVeigh parked a truck next to a federal building in}

Oklahoma that contained a bomb which would kill 168 people. The perpetrator this time was no foreign migrant, but an American man that acted out of a right-extremist, anti-government ideology. After being convicted for his crime he received a lethal injection in 2001, only a few months before the September 11 attacks. One other person was identified as an accomplice and sentenced to life in prison. A third man knew about the attack beforehand and didn’t do anything to prevent it. He ended up serving more than ten years in prison (MacFarquhar, 2020). These two terrorist attacks provided a foundation for new laws to combat terrorism. As a result, only eight days after the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act (Congressional Research Service, 1996) was introduced to the Senate and it got signed into

law almost a year later in April 1996. The act contained new penalties for material support to terrorist organizations, imposed the death penalty on anybody who killed someone by the use of a weapon of mass destruction, provided support and compensation to victims of terrorism, made more severe penalties for the use of explosive materials, provided better methods for the registration and detection of explosive materials, and drafted a legal basis for the refusal of terrorist suspects that were seeking asylum in the US (Congressional Research Service, 1996). Around the same period another issue became the centre of the public debates. According to a report by the Department of Homeland Security (1996) the total number of unauthorized migrants within the United States had risen to about five million in October 1996. Estimates showed that this number was growing with about 275,000 people every year. Most of these, about 54 percent of all undocumented migrants or about 2.7 million people, came from Mexico, followed by El Salvador (335,000 migrants) and Guatemala (165,000 migrants). The three most popular states of residence were California (2,000,000 migrants), Texas (700,000 migrants) and New York (540,000 migrants) (Department of Homeland Security, 1996). That same year the

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (House of Representatives, 1996)

was introduced and signed into law to address the problem. It contained amendments to improve border security through new technologies, ID cards, and the use of physical barriers. It also raised the penalties against illegal entry, document fraud, and human smuggling. It provided new rules to remove inadmissible or deportable migrants. The act prohibits public higher education institutions from educating undocumented migrants (House of Representatives, 1996).

In January 2001, President Clinton was also succeeded. This time by the son of his predecessor: George W. Bush. Initially, his focus was mostly on domestic issues. However, after his initial months his presidency and stance on foreign policy issues would be largely influenced by the

(23)

September 11 attacks (Shipoli, 2018). One migration policy proposal was introduced in the Senate during this first period of his presidency: the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors

Act (Congressional Research Service, 2001a). This happened shortly before the 9/11 attacks, in

August 2001, by two Senators: Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch. This so-called DREAM Act contained new rules for foreign students below the age of 21 that took residence in the US. When an undocumented migrant entered the country as a minor, he or she would be granted temporary residence to finish education. After meeting certain conditions this temporary permit could later be turned into permanent residency (Congressional Research Service, 2001a). However, the proposal never made it through the Senate, but became a foundation for the introduction of several amended DREAM Acts in the years to follow, and for the DACA Act that would be implemented by Obama in 2012. Part of it has also been used in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (Congressional Research Service, 2007).

By this time the Visa Waiver Program had endured some more expansions, and now included Brunei, Ireland, Argentine, Australia, Slovenia, Portugal, Singapore and Uruguay. This brought the total number of VWP countries to 29 (Kolker & Platzer, 2020).

4.2 September 11 and the immediate political response

Then the 9/11 attacks took place on September 11th_{2001. Four airplanes were hijacked, of which}

two crashed into the North and South tower of the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and the fourth was brought down into a field in Pennsylvania by its hijackers after passengers tried to recapture the plane. A total of 2,977 people died in the attacks, of which 2,606 were present in the World Trade Center at the time (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 2004).

Some discussion persists on the motives for these brutal attacks. Malejacq (2020) mentions three possibilities. Firstly, the attacks could be a way of retaliation for the US military involvement in Middle Eastern countries; Al-Qaeda wanted the United States as foreign invader out of their region. Secondly, Al-Qaeda could have meant to attempt to grasp the leadership position in the global jihad by showing off their might. And lastly, a motive could be that the organization wanted to make the US react by invading Afghanistan in order to get its military stuck (Malejacq, 2020). If we look at the different goals behind terrorist attacks in the earlier mentioned article by Kydd and Walter (2006), we can see that these three motives fall into the categories of policy change (US retreatment from the Middle East) and social control (leadership in the global jihad). The article also states that the probable strategy used by Al-Qaeda consists of two parts: attrition and provocation. The attrition means that Al-Qaeda meant to persuade the US government that the organisation could inflict serious damage on US soil, which was meant to make the United States meet Al-Qaeda’s demands, for example by the withdrawal of US troops from the Middle East. By provocation Al-Qaeda attempted to make the US respond to the attacks in a harmful way which might also cause civilian casualties, in this case during the invasion of Afghanistan. In the international context, this could depict the US in a bad light and would take away its legitimacy as actor in the Middle East (Kydd & Walter, 2006).

According to Shipoli (2018) the main question about the response of the government after the attacks was whether or not the US government would retreat its military forces abroad in order to decrease the domestic threat. As mentioned by Malejacq (2020) this could be part of what the 9/11 hijackers had tried to reach with their attacks. The answer came later that same day when US President George W. Bush first addressed the nation about the attacks on the evening of

The U.S. versus them

U.S. Versus Them

The effects of the September 11 attacks on migration policy in the United States and how

this has influenced visa issuances to migrants from Muslim-majority countries in particular

Anke van Gils

U.S. Versus Them

The effects of the September 11 attacks on migration policy in the United States and how

this has influenced visa issuances to migrants from Muslim-majority countries in

particular

Summary

Table of Contents

List of Images

List of Tables

1. Introduction

1.1 Social and scientific relevance

1.2 Research aims and question

2. Theory

2.1 Literature review

2.1.1. Visa functions and the evolution of global mobility

2.1.2. What shapes foreign policy

2.1.3. The ‘terrorist’ frame

2.1.4. The purposes of terrorist attacks

2.2 Conceptual model

3. Methodology

4. Policy development in the years before and after

9/11

4.1 Migration policy before 9/11

4.2 September 11 and the immediate political response