As the threat of global terrorism becomes an increasing concern, the movement of people becomes the subject of public policy debate.
A. Why might some individuals concerned about global terrorism advocate the free movement of people and relatively open immigration policy? This response should be 2-3 sentences in length.
B. Why might some individuals concerned about global terrorism advocate limits on the movement of people and relatively restricted immigration policy? This response should be 2-3 sentences in length.
C. In 1-2 sentences, explain which of these positions do you find more persuasive, and why.
(4 points)
A. Some individuals concerned about global terrorism may advocate the free movement of people and relatively open immigration policy because they believe that restrictive immigration policies can promote discrimination and marginalization, potentially fueling resentment and radicalization. They may argue that inclusive societies can foster integration and cooperation, making it easier to detect and prevent acts of terrorism.
B. Some individuals concerned about global terrorism may advocate limits on the movement of people and relatively restricted immigration policy because they believe that stricter immigration policies can help prevent individuals with terrorist intentions from entering the country. They may argue that stricter controls and background checks are necessary to ensure national security and protect citizens from potential threats.
C. In my opinion, both positions have valid concerns and arguments. However, I find the position advocating the free movement of people and relatively open immigration policy more persuasive. While it is crucial to prioritize national security, I believe that inclusive and diverse societies have the potential to strengthen social cohesion and enhance the information-sharing network needed to detect and combat terrorism more effectively.