89 MIGRATION AND SECURITY: THE ROLE OF NON-STATE ACTORS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES IN LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES Gallya Lahav 1 In an era of growing security concerns and heightened State efforts to curtail immigration to the developed world, Western democracies are increasingly caught between their liberal ethos and their ability to effectively and securely control their borders. An examination of policy implementation in the United States and Europe reveals that liberal States have responded to these cross-pressures by: a) reinventing their modes of immigration regulation; and b) adopting strategies which are converging. States have shifted the level of policy-making to non-State actors, who have the economic and/or political resources to facilitate or curtail travel, migration and return. These include a complex web of actors incorporated by the State, and the transfer of State functions to non-centralized jurisdictions. Liberal States have been able to extend their realm of action, and overcome certain constraints by changing the gatekeepers at external and internal sites, to include: private (i.e., airlines, travel companies, employers), local (i.e., civic actors, such as churches, elected officials, trade unions), and international/supranational agents (i.e., the EU, Mexico, ICAO). Together they reflect an enlarged ‘migration playing field’ in an increasingly global world. State agencies have thus been able to solve the control dilemma in ways that can at once appease public anxieties over migration and security, short-circuit judicial and normative constraints and still promote trade and tourist flows. The expansion of an immigration regulatory playing-field has been evident in the United States and countries of the EU, since the 1980s when immigration began to be linked with law-and-order concerns. These approaches represent a trade-off of certain democratic values, sanctioned by citizens – a willingness to compromise civil liberties and personal freedom for a greater sense of security from immigration, terrorism, and globalization. They are consistent with an older repertoire of mechanisms liberal States employ when security looms large. Security is a powerful issue that motivates voters to transfer such authority to bureaucracies and other non-State actors in the name of law and order. It is important to examine the sources (i.e., public opinion constituencies, media framing) and rationale that inspire these dynamics, as well as the implications for immigration, rights-based norms, and democratic values. Assuming that convergence of these modes has taken place among democratic countries, to what degree are the outcomes similar in the U.S. and the countries of the EU, and why? What are the lessons that liberal democracies may offer each other regarding policy instruments? Does the impact of 9/11 promise more continuity or change? The following section of the paper deals first with the assumption that September 11 th has fundamentally changed the ‘playing field’ of immigration regulation. It examines the link between migration and security, and investigates the historical context of this link. Sections III and IV assess the extent that liberal States can go in controlling their borders in a liberal era, and identifies the complex modes of regulation that are available to policy-makers under conditions of heightened security threat. The rationale behind these regulatory modes of policy elaboration and implementation are discussed in section V. Finally, the conclusions draw on these trends to say something about the security and democratic consequences of non-State actors in immigration regulation. A. WHAT HAS CHANGED? NEW WINE IN OLD B OTTLES On September 11 th , the alarm bells of terror reverberated beyond the borders of the United States. The implication of foreign networks was much discussed in the media, raised the specter of populism and led to arguments that liberal democratic governments would be compelled to dramatically rethink their border controls in a global world full of ‘people on the move’. A marked increase in bilateral and multilateral activity 1 Professor, Department of Political Science, State University of New York at Stony Brook