Creating security through immigration control : an analysis of European immigration discourse and the development towards a common EU asylum and immigration policy

Increased immigration during the last few decades has coincided with increasing unemployment and economic restructuring in Western Europe. The issue of immigration became increasingly sensitive in the late 1980s after the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, when a tide of illegal immigrants was expected to inundate the west. Today, images of ships loaded with refugees off the shores of Italy, or of trucks filled with illegal immigrants crossing the English channel, have become disturbing, but no longer rare features of European newspaper headlines. The impression is that of Europe being swamped , and unable to deal with the hordes of people standing outside its gates wanting in. The purpose of this thesis was to discuss the extent to which immigration has come to be perceived as a security threat by European Union (EU) policy-makers. The manner in which immigration issues are presented by policy makers at the European level is assumed to have substantive implications for the choice of instruments in the area. A second purpose was therefore to discuss the extent to which the development towards a common EU asylum and immigration policy could be interpreted as security policy strategy. Under the pressure of events since 1989, many scholars argue that the security concept should be widened to encompass new security policy challenges that have arisen. The post-1989 situation has suggested new scenarios, such as the end of bipolarity and the redefinition of borders. Often, economic and social imbalances, environmental problems and humanitarian disasters are considered as important, or even more important security challenges than military war. Thus, the point of departure of the analysis is the changing perception of what constitutes security threats, unravelled through an analysis of political discourse. Through a division of sectors, the so-called Copenhagen school offers a framework for analysis that structures the security debate, and that includes other referent objects than the state in security analysis. Asylum and immigration is regarded as a societal security issue when it is staged as a threat to a community, and the very identity of that community. The background variable constitutes the foundation for the renewal of European strategies in the field of asylum and immigration. Here, the focus is primarily on the dramatic changes in the world economy in the 1970s, leading to increased inflation and unemployment, as well as comprehensive restructuring processes in many countries. Important factors relate to the immigration stop introduced in the early 1970s, marking the beginning of more restrictive asylum and immigration measures in the Western European nation states. Attention was also drawn to the consequences of the end of the Cold War on the ensuing development of the EU, the fall of the Soviet Union and the creation of new states. Yet another factor regards the European integration process, the construction of the Schengen area, and the deterritorialisation of markets, physical borders and identities. The intervening variable constitutes the perceptions of the challenges emanating from asylum and immigration issues in the EU. Concerns with possible negative effects on European economies, and fear of instability are assumed to be the most important explanations as to why immigration became a securitised issue on the European agenda. In this part of the analysis I am concerned with the extent to which immigration is defined as a security problem as a result of European political discourse. The dependent variable, and what I seek to explain, is the contents of the EU policy on asylum and immigration as it developed after the Amsterdam summit. Changed conditions for asylum and immigration in Europe, and the changed fashion in which security is perceived at the European level, are assumed to have influenced the development of EU objectives and instruments. The presentation of asylum and immigration as a security threat has been met with co-ordinated action through policy making in the European Union. Most policy initiatives dealing with asylum and immigration have been control-inspired, and take place within frameworks that link asylum and immigration with the fight against organised crime, human trafficking and drugs control, such as the Schengen and Dublin frameworks. Their intention is to create security in the Single Market and protect the Union s external borders through instruments such as visa control, and these aspects have by far prevailed over the need for stronger harmonisation and the creation of minimum protection standards in the common asylum and immigration policy. Asylum and immigration has also been securitised through the EU s external relations. The decision to establish partnership action plans with immigrant countries of origin and transit build on a security rationale, where trade and development aid are perceived to be the main instruments. Moreover, the temporary protection directive, and the emphasis on limiting the migration flows from Kosovo can be interpreted as an attempt to circumvent responsibility laid down in the Geneva Convention in order to deal with the costly treatment of long-term refugees. After 11 September, the need to fight racism and xenophobia has been employed as a legitimising factor to introduce stricter immigration controls, and human rights group warn against the effects of the new extradition regime. Although the charter of fundamental rights and the European Monitor Centre on Racism and Xenophobia represent positive measures in this respect, the war on terrorism risks an unwanted criminalisation of the Arab population. Lastly, the effects of EU co-operation on asylum and immigration on the wider international regime of refugee protection remain unclear. The concept of temporary protection is likely to contribute further to a strengthening of the state vis-à-vis the individual refugee, in so far as it tends to be applied also to persons who fall within the scope of the Geneva Convention. This was especially made clear by the 1999 Kosovo crisis