The main argument is that the link between counter-terrorism policies and more restrictive legislation for immigrants is a political construction that has not been sufficiently explained by legislators. As a result, nations are left with policies that not only limit the liberties of immigrants but also fail to secure nations against the threat of terrorism. In making this argument, the author relies on the Moral-Panics Theory, which shows how immigrants are often depicted as “folk devils” who are worthy of suspicion and increased surveillance. While terrorism and migration are two different types of social problems, in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks they have become insurmountably intertwined, particularly for those migrants who happen to be of Arab or Muslim origin. The case of Spain, which has successfully fought against ethno-nationalist and social-revolutionary terrorism for years, is considered for two main reasons: (1) the country passed no new counter-terrorism legislation following the September 11th attacks due to the many already in existence, and (2) Spain has had a long history of expelling rather than embracing immigrants yet current economic success has made it a haven for immigrants seeking a better way of life. Immigration and crime are strongly connected in the Spanish news press, which took on even larger proportions following the September 11th attacks and the attack on Madrid. Immigration was blamed for the increasing lack of security in Spain and a general “moral panic” ensued that threatened the status of alien residents. This moral panic has been borne out in some of the latest legislative reforms aimed at foreigners in Spain, which are largely marked by a spirit of exclusion and suspicion and relate counter-terrorism to migration policy. References