Matt Boran Prof.

Margaret Zowine English 11 Section L September 19, 2011 On the Mutual Exclusivity of Liberty and Freedom America is a land of immigrants, where one can find the proverbial melting pot of peoples and cultures. Then came 9/11. All of a sudden, the lives of Americans were much more fragile than they were before, and certain compromises had to be made in order to protect America from any future attacks. This spawned legislation such as the PATRIOT Act and government organizations such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Agency, whose sole objective for existence, ideally, is to prevent any further American lives lost at the hands of terrorists on American soil. However security comes at a price; anyone who has waited for two hours in line at security checkpoints in the airport can attest to this. To what extent is extra safety worth losing a few civil rights? The risk of being injured by a domestic terrorist attack is much smaller than the risk of being struck by lightning, but most Americans would be hesitant to give up their 4th amendment rights so that the government can protect them from being zapped. Why, then, are these same people so willing to be wiretapped without a warrant, searched randomly, and molested every time they want to get on a plane in the name of security? From this point of view, the terrorists have won. Their attacks on 9/11 have gradually drained our citizens of their rights in the name of security and have imprisoned innocent refugees on a suspicion. We all live with a certain level of risk in post-9/11 America, (Danticat, 601) writes Edwidge Danticat in her essay, Not Your Homeland. We lived with a certain level of risk

before 9/11 and we will continue living with a certain level of risk well into the future. Walking across the street is a risk, yet people do not seem to have a problem doing so. In fact, Danticat asks a few sentences later, Will America ever learn again how to protect itself without sacrificing a great many innocent lives? (Danticat, 601). Danticat is outraged at the way that her uncle was treated all he wanted to do was leave an unsafe environment and find asylum within U.S. borders. He died shortly thereafter. While this is a rather extreme example of the consequences of all the heightened security measures taken in response to 9/11, it did happen. No one human life is worth protecting more than another. It is absurd to believe that in imprisoning refugees just because of their country of origin will make our country any safer. If anything, it will foster more resentment of America in the suspect country. In contrast, Mark Kirikorian supports the opposing opinion that, at least when it comes to getting into this country, the number one concern should be whether the immigrant is dangerous or not. Keeping the terrorists out, or apprehending them after they get in, is indispensable to victory (Kirikorian, 594). He argues that since about half of the past 48 people who have committed terrorist acts in the United States were here legally, it should be harder for people to enter the country. The lack of effective immigration control leaves us naked in the face of the enemy, (Kirikorian, 595) he writes. Certainly, immigration restrictions are necessary. However, there is a difference between screening immigrants criminal record and detaining every single Saudi or Pakistani that wishes to be granted entry into America. This attitude of suspicion is what leads to the situation described in Danticats essay. It is the same attitude of suspicion that caused us to imprison Japanese-Americans after the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and it will continue making innocent men and women out to be criminals in the hope that eventually a real criminal will try to get by and will be caught. In Danticats own words, my uncle was treated like a

criminal when his only offense was thinking that he could find shelter in the United States (Danticat, 601). National security and immigration control are certainly linked, but stopping immigration will not stop all threats to national security. No single action a nation can take will ever solve all of its problems. To argue that the problem (and its solution) is that simple is pointless. However, it is clear that, in this case, one can be too careful. If security is the most valuable item in society today, just how much can be sacrificed in order to achieve it? Perfect security and perfect freedom are completely exclusive. A balance of the two must be attained somehow. Never should human life be sacrificed to reach this goal. Benjamin Franklin said it perfectly those who are willing to give up their freedom in the name of safety deserve neither freedom nor safety.

Works Cited Danticat, Edwidge. Not Your Homeland. Kennedy, Kennedy, and Aaron. Kennedy, X. J., Dorothy M. Kennedy, and Jane E. Aaron, eds. The Bedford Reader. 11th ed. Boston: Bedford, 2012. Print. Kirikorian, Mark. Safety through Immigration Control. Kennedy, Kennedy, and Aaron.