How the EU’s Migration Policies Transformed into Security Subject?
The topic of this term paper deals with the current EU’s migration policies. International immigration movement has been one of the deliberations in the current challenges which shapes the economic, social and political structure of Europe, particularly since the 2015 Refugee Crisis. This challenge has been taking place through the process which called “Arab Spring” by the growing migration flows due to political and economic instabilities existed in North African countries.
The aim of this study was to investigate EU migration policy through securitization by using securitization theory. The research question is the following; “How the EU’s migration policies transformed into security subject?” The term paper aims to answer this question systematically through the following sections. It is perceived migration as a “new threat object” that incites to analyze by using Securitization theory.
This paper has been divided into five sections. The first section seeks to examine the changing nature of policy regulations through migration policies.
The second section is the main analytical part. This section has theoretically discussed in the frame of the fundamental structure of securitization and the Copenhagen School. It indicates the impacts of extraordinary measures taken by the EU and changing developments Europe’s ideological map to explain the theory. It also facilitates from the concept of externalization by examining implementations on the border controls.
The third section accentuates the framework for migration as a security subject.
The fourth section focus on securitization of migration has discussed by addressing a parallel way of the supranational process. This section emphasizes that the transitions of asylum seekers and immigrants across the Schengen border be necessitated the coherent cooperation with the EU institutions and also member states. Besides, immigration has become a fundamental property of both at the national level and also the European Union level indeed. So most importantly, it has been transformed into a subject of “high politics.”
Finally, the conclusion gives a summary of the results of the analysis undertaken in the other sections, and the research question will be answered.
II. Evolution of the EU’s Migration Policies
Historically, international migration always exists therewithal with the globalization, immigration movements worldwide have enhanced, and both asylums, legal and illegal migration have raised by significant numbers. Economic, politic and social-cultural effects are a consequence of legal and illegal immigration that has an impact on severe pressures on the EU. These pressures have been used in order to the control that induced seeking new politics by member states either the EU.
Furthermore, the development of common migration policy in the European Union (EU) is embedded in more extensive societal, political and professional processes that articulate an endangered society. Western European welfare states face a multiplicity of challenges to their mechanisms of social integration and political legitimacy (Huysmans, 2002). These include economic and financial globalization, the rise of poverty, the deterioration of living conditions in cities, the revival of racist and xenophobic parties and movements, the estrangement of the electorate from the political class, and the rise of multiculturalism.
In the time, European Economic Community (EEC) did not have genuine competences, member states not desire to cooperate in the internal matters. Afterward, Schengen Agreement was signed in 1985 (European Commission, 2008) by five countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Luxemburg and the Netherlands) has regarded in the first result of intergovernmental cooperation about migration. The agreement has been reduced the authority of the member states; on the other hand; it has strengthened the spectrum on the borders (Geddes, 2008). Hence, the launching of the Schengen Agreement is a significant attempt to enhance the control of borders and the restrictions against migration. The signing of “the Single European Act” is a vital step in the free movement and also, it prompted enhancing intergovernmental cooperation about the immigration movements comes from the out of the community. The notion of free movement in person has lead reducing either remove of the internal border controls and also bring some new results. Then, the security problem would appear by abolishing the internal border that has required the rise in the external border, applying new arrangements in this area. It also indicated de-determine and co-operation in asylum and migration policy which is regarded on this subject. Schengen Agreement aimed to remove internal borders among member states but, it induced to the rise in “asylum hooping and asylum shopping (European Commission, 2008).”
Another vital document is the Dublin Convention which is created by intergovernmental cooperation. This convention underpins the introduction of political dialogue about asylum and the base of the legal framework. Dublin logic is regarded as the member state that allows asylum-seeker into the Schengen territory, and that is entirely “first entry logic.” of the Dublin Convention.
In the 1990s the enhanced intergovernmental cooperation has led integration process and migration movements intensively. Also, it has prompted the intergovernmental cooperation in the subject of migration and asylum that has moved at the Community level. In the frame of the Maastricht Agreement which into forced in 1993, the European Community has taken the name of the European Union and created “three basic pillars.” The most significant point about the EU’s migration policy is asylum policy has part of the third pillar which specifies “national government control over policy outputs.” Hence, the efforts have started to intensify in the area of migration and asylum policies at European level.
The phenomenon of migration has been one of the precedence agendas of the European Union since the Amsterdam Treaty in the framework of establishing the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). Nevertheless, security and political dimension of migration have come to the forefront; it is a phenomenon which influencing economic, social and cultural policy areas simultaneously (Carrera & Merlino, 2009).
The Amsterdam Agreement is considered one of the turning point by integrating EU migration management into Acquis Communautaire. With Amsterdam Agreement, the Union has highlighted as the area of freedom, security, and justice and also illustrated the section which covers free movement, migration, and asylum. It provided the legislation towards discrimination the base of race and ethnic identity (Carrera & Merlino, 2009).
After Amsterdam Agreement, the Tampere Summit was organized in 1999; it was aimed to create a specific strategy in the AFSJ. In this context, it has been considered that a more compressive approach intended the migration issue which involves source, transit country, and political, economic and social conditions. It has indicated that the necessity of member states co-operation (Buono, 2009).
Moreover, the Tampere Summit aimed to emerge a pro-active and coherent Common European Asylum System (CEAS). It arranged the basic standards of the CEAS. It sought to conclude who could be a refugee, how asylum seekers should be received in the member states, which procedural rights they enjoyed during the asylum policies (Buono, 2009).
In 2004, the Hague program with the name of “Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the EU” accepted. It emphasized that the requirement of creating an approach related to all stages of migration. As a part of this approach, it has noted that the importance of cooperation with countries and regions on the source and transit point of migration in order to the protection of borders and regulation of migration movements that is fewer ambitions and more security oriented. The rise in security concern which due to September 11 Terrorist Attacks which changed the perception of migration and it triggered the new political constellation in the Council (Bendel & Ripoll Servent, 2017, p. 61). Furthermore, it has been a tangible step the establishment of FRONTEX with the impact of intensive security concern in the program content. Despite all visions and inclusive approaches, the Hague Program has not achieved its all goals owing to both the EU’s bureaucratic structure and institutional problems.
The European Pact on Immigration and Asylum was a proposal by France during its presidency of the EU in the second half of 2008. The Council adopted it in October 2008 the discourse and terminology used by the Pact advocated the promotion of further migration controls and common actions “against illegal immigration” (Merlino & Carrera, 2009). The Council agreed on a series of general commitments. One of them consisted of the “control [of] illegal immigration by ensuring that illegal immigrants return to their countries of origin or a country of transit.” It was held that “[on] principle” irregular immigrants on member states’ territory should leave the Union. It has its narrow vision of the rights of TCNs in the EU and its effective “intergovernmental and nationalistic approach towards future EU cooperation on migration policy” (Merlino & Carrera, 2009).