The most important border control failures in the case of September 11 terrorist attacks were actually the passes to the hijackers by the consulate offices overseas. Nevertheless, the U.S. response included a dramatic crackdown on border ports of entry and a toughening of the policy disclosures about border security. Politicians from across the political spectrum rushed to pledge their commitment to strengthen border safety.
Moreover, the handy visible indicators of progress traditionally used for border enforcement work. Counter-terrorism successes were by their nature less frequent, less visible, and more secretive. Counter-terrorism had traditionally been a low priority. However, the United States Customs Service border enforcement operations had until September 2001 to focus on drug control. The financial year 2003 budget provided an increase in the inspections budget of more than two billion dollars for border security ...view middle of the document...
Although the terrorist bombings on September 11 took place miles away, the shock waves were immediately felt along the United States-Mexico borderline.
In the post era of September 11, the border policy agenda has become more driven by the United States. This had troubling with implications for Mexico, most notably concern was the United States immigration policy debate as immigration matters have inescapably come to be viewed through the notice of national security. Not only immigration policy reform stalled and been placed on the back burner, but the prior escalation of the United States immigration control efforts along the border hiring boom started in the 1990s. By the end of the financial year of 2009, the border patrol was expected to have some twenty thousand agents (158). The continued border policing buildup targeting unauthorized migration included plans to build hundreds of miles of new border fencing.
Border enforcement would be sufficiently visible to satisfy those who feel that people should be doing more to regain control of the border. In the public policy, the advantage of such visible, symbolic action is much to understand. Where a problem is not capable of total solution, such action acquires great importance. Many people should believe that in was never said to be a splendid policy. From this perspective, stupid policies can be smart politics. The United States border is to significant extent a story about political success of flawed and failing policies. Yet, it have also stressed the enforcement buildup has done far more than simply projects an appearance of doing something. Building a border fence was the least disruptive way of doing nothing while appearing to be doing something.
In conclusions, border narratives have prescriptive implications. Lesson drawn from the narrative determine what policy options are considered legitimate and which ones are dismissed or ignored. Policy analysis and policy prescription, therefore, are never as separated as many would like to believe. The policy solution that seems equally obvious is to tighten border controls. The story line of border policing can take various forms, directing attention to some facts and not to others.