Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in the

European Union
Should the EU 'securitize' asylum and immigration?
By Gareth Whitley

The terrorist attacks in New York, Washington D.C., London and

Madrid have brought terrorism, immigration and border security
further into the forefront of politics. We are told that in order to have
effective internal security we need to have tighter and more effective
external border security.
This essay poses the question, "Should the EU 'securitize'
asylum and immigration"? The essay will assess how asylum seekers and
immigration in general have come to be been deemed as a threat to
security, as well as how the threat has appeared to increase in the later
stages of the Twentieth Century and beginning of the Twenty-First
Century. It looks at the traditional aspects of the fear of immigrants and
what relation it has in the context of the new-wave of terrorism. The
essay then looks at the European Union and why, if it wants to achieve
its objective of security against illegal immigration, terrorism and other
international crime, it should reassess the way that it continues to
'securitize' asylum and immigration.
It is the argument of this essay that the language of security,
fear and the threat of terrorism, is helping to ensure the production of a
"fortress Europe", where states and governments have come to label all
immigrants as threats to European society, culture and national security.
Through the creation of new immigration laws and the proposal for
European-wide agencies for the regulation of migration, intelligence
and security, there is a danger of instilling a 'frontier mentality' (Leech
Student Number: 041439968

2002: 5) and an un-natural fear of people that wish to enter the Union.
This in itself, is a contradiction of the European Union's motto, Unity
in Diversity (EU website).

THE ORIGINS OF ILLEGAL MIGRATION

We begin by looking at how the phenomenon of illegal
migration came to be and how it has entered into a framework of
security. Prior to the construction of the fixed sovereign state, migration
was essentially free for those that needed to move. There were no strict
immigration or asylum laws and thus no illegal migration. It is only
from the time that border control became a sovereign right for states to
manage, that the problem of illegal migration arises. (Boswell 2003: 6061 and Wver, Buzan, Kelstrup and Lemaire, 1993: 149).
Transnational migration is a concern for the sovereign state.
If they are unable to effectively control their borders, then it appears
that they are not 'truly' sovereign and powerful or hold proper
authority throughout the country (Wver et al. 1993: 149). To have the
ability to control the security of borders is one of the fundamental
attributes for a state (Wver et. al. 1993: 149).
A government needs a stable base of power in order for it to
function and hold that power. This power is provided by a nation-state
where the population shares a similar culture and society. If a mass of
immigrants enters into any country, they will bring with them their
own societal norms and cultures. This diversity could potentially create
instability for the host country's society and culture. This is seen as a
threat to the stable base of power to governments and individuals.
(Wver 1993: 148-150).
The threat from illegal migration was hardly heard-of in
political diagloue and rhetoric before the 1970s and the Cold War. The

Student Number: 041439968

Superpowers were too busy dealing with the security threat of

Mutually-Assured-Destruction, to worry about mass migration. In fact,
they would have been very pleased to welcome migrants into their
respective regions, as it would give another blow to the other side with
regards to ideology and quality of life. Following the collapse of the
Soviet Union and subsequently the dissolution of the Cold War and the
clear threat from international communism, immigrants were no-longer
as welcome (Wver 1993: 149; Harris 2002: 22).
Right-wing political groups and media that been concerned
with the threat of international communism, now became gravely
concerned with the problem of immigration. They play upon
sensitivities in society regarding unemployment and crime. Contrary to
what these groups argue, it is more to the fact that such issues of
unemployment and crime are largely unrelated with changes of
migration flows (Boswell 2003: 61).
With the recent terrorist attacks, immigration has been
brought to the front of security concerns, not just of right-wing groups,
but also of mainstream government and subsequently the general
public. Not only are we told that immigrants in general are criminals,
but that they have also become advocates of terrorism. The British Press
has reported that Britain has become "a breeding ground for al-Qaeda
terror" and that "the British are hostages to Islamic radicalism" (BBC
News: 14th July 2005).
The idea of the "Clash of Civilizations"(Huntington S.) has
now become part of mainstream political dialogue and rhetoric. The
idea is that the Muslim world and the Christian world are unable to
integrate with each other because of differences in fundamental values
and beliefs. Populations, media, politicians and governments have
become scared of an invasion of a foreign Islamic culture.

Student Number: 041439968

When viewed through the lens of societal security, a

potential threat comes into focus. As the media reports, the potential
migration of large numbers of ethnically and culturally different
peoples into Europe generates fears, within those that hold power, that
are easily mobilised using the language of security (Wver et al. 1993:
130-133).

ILLEGAL MIGRATION IN EUROPE

The fears of illegal immigration into individual states have
been mirrored in the policy of the EU. At the time of the European
Community, refugees and economic migrants found it almost impossible
to locate accessible legal methods of entry. Now with the creation of the
EU and its further demands for the strengthening of border controls,
the problem has been greatly exacerbated (Boswell 2003: 61).
Potential migrants are forced to seek illegal methods of entry
into the EU member states. They are exploited by criminals for
prostitution, slave labour, narcotics smuggling and other serious crime.
Such desperate measures and their subsequent results have produced illfound stigma within populations around the world and not just within
the EU. (Boswell 2003: 61 & 65; Harris 2002: 3).
The existance of fortifications on borders clearly illustrates
that immigration is seen by governments as a matter of security,
criminality and even a threat to democracy and civil society (Harris
2002: 22). Countries have become walled in order to cease the flow of
illegal migration. Such fortresses can be seen in the past as well as the
present.
During the Cold War, the Berlin Wall was erected to stop
East Germans escaping to the west. In the 1990s the "Tortilla Curtain"
was erected on the border between Mexico and The United States. In

Student Number: 041439968

Spanish Cetua fences have been constructed on the border with

Morrocco, all with the intention of stopping 'them' from getting to 'us'
(Harris 2002: 22).
In Europe, immigration became an issue to be policed. Illegal
migration is seen as a crime in the same file as forced labour, human
trafficking, prostitution and narcotic smugling and now terrorism
(Harris 2002: 23). As Nigel Harris argues in "Thinking the Unthinkable"
(2002: 23), it is as if "parking offences were classified in the same
category as killing pedestrians". The Mexican tomato picker, the
Albanian street seller and the Sengalese cleaner, have all been wrapped
in the same blanket as the invading warriors from the East-terrorists
that threaten our morallity, society and culture.

THE SECURITIZATION OF IMMIGRATION IN EUROPE

We have seen that immigration has been 'securitized' for
some time in Europe. Cooperation on border control and illegal entry
was the first significant form of collaboration on security to emerge
among European Community countries (Boswell 2003: 100). Migration
will always be fundamental to EU member states and European
integration (Geddes 2000: 1). It has been labelled as an economic threat
and a threat to society and culture. In some instances, this may be true,
for example, with the presence of international terrorism and the recent
terrorist attacks in London and Madrid and past attacks by ETA and the
IRA.
It is clear that terrorism has penetrated Europe's borders in
the past, either physcially or through the use of propaganda and
recruitment. It may again in the future and in this case there is the
argument that security needs to be improved. However, it is unfair to
see all immigrants as threats to 'national security'. Genuine immigrants

Student Number: 041439968

and asylum seekers, do not travel such great distances and take massive
risks for pathetic ambitions of 'sponging' off the state, or killing the
people they hope to call their friends and neighbours (Harris 2002: 3).
With the enlargement of the EU to include countries as
Spain, Greece, Italy and eastern European countries, external border
security is an imporant matter, especially to Schengen Agreement states
(Boswell 2003: 101). Security agreements with third countries and
increases in the amount of patrols and surveillance have attempted to
plug the flow of illegal immigrants into EU countries. However, due to
the recent rises in the amounts of people wishing to enter the newly
enlarged EU, these attempts have not created any overall reduction in
illegal immigration (Boswell 2003: 101-102).
The European Commission characterizes measures to combat
illegal immigration as "preventative" and "repressive". Preventative
measures are defined as anything that addresses the root causes of
migration and refugee flows. Repressive measures include interstate
police and judicial cooperatrion to apprehend and prosecute
perpetrators. Related measures are the creation of Europe-wide agencies
such as Eurodac (Boswell 2003: 105).
It should come as no suprise that the "repressive" measures
have shown most cooperation and actions. In 2001 the UK and Italy
sent border police and immigration officers to the Balklans to
apprehend illegal immigrants. In 2003 both countries also participated
in Operation Ulysses, where ships were deployed to patrol the
Mediterranean to apprehend illegal immigrants attempting to cross into
Spain and Italy (Boswell 2003: 105-106).
The confrontational repressive measures are good for
intercepting and arresting people. However, the vast majority of the
people that are apprehended are genuine immigrants that seek a stable

Student Number: 041439968

and safe life (Harris 2002: 1-8). Deployments of international military

force to apprehend defenceless individuals seems slightly heavyhanded.

Indirect forms of preventative measures are more inline with

the EU ethos of peaceful cooperation (Boswell 2003: 112). A social
approach that takes into serious consideration human and civil rights,
international law and questions the legitimacy of complete state
sovereignty, would perhaps be a better tool at reducing the amounts of
illegal immigration into Europe.
The limitations of the aggressive and confrontational
repressive domestic and EU migration control policies clearly shows
that restrictive entry policies, strict border controls and tougher asylum
systems alone do not solve the problem of unwanted flows of
immigrants. Even with today's difficult immigration laws and policies,
the flow of immigrants and thus also illegal migration, has not been
plugged (Boswell 2003: 112).
If the EU and its member states wish to make a real change,
then their methods and objectives need to be reassessed. There should
be a shift towards preventative approaches.
During the Cold War intervention came with high-stakes for
global conflict escalation. Generally, these have now disappeared.
Activities that were considered too much interference with internal
sovereign affairs are now more feasible. This is evidenced by the
bilaterial, UN and NATO intervetions in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda
and Kosovo (Boswell 2003: 113). Now that there is a confidence and a
history of international action to address problems such as human rights
and civil-conflict, Europe should learn to take greater consideration for
such actions.

Student Number: 041439968

A problem still arises, however, when we come to the

question of the 'realist' state. Should the EU and its member states still
keep to the traditional intrinsic nature of the realist state and only be
concerned with internal security matters when it approaches our own
borders? Or should we seek to find a more pluralist approach or even
adopt a solidarist mentality? States could argue that their business is
with their own security and that intervention to solve crises does
nothing to solve their own security problems and that in any case,
humanitarian intervention infringes upon the sovereignty principle
(Wheeler 2000: 1-20).
We could answer these questions by looking at the position
of the EU. As a transnational organisation where decisions and common
policy are beginning to be made with an increasing frequency, it seems
that the next logical step is to address the issue of sovereignty, EU and
international law and prospects for using more, effective preventative
measures to reduce the reasons for flows of illegal immigrants.
There needs to be greater interstate co-operation between
the EU, third countries and other international organisations such as the
United Nations. Concerns need to be emphasised upon root causes
(Boswell 2003: 119). The way that Europe approaches immigration and
more specifically, illegal migration needs to be reassessed in a new lens,
away from 'security'.
Some may question this mentality and argue to keep out of
other people's problems and that the law is there for a reason. As
Christina Boswell states in "European Migration Policies in flux",
changes in perception of immigrants and changes in immigration policy
would

ultimately

lead

towards

creating

suitable

migration

environment, where people who wish to move from one area to

another, outside of the EU to inside the EU and so on, would be able to

Student Number: 041439968

do so in a legal manner (2003: 119).

If the root-causes of immigration are tackled and the laws
that define illegal immigration are changed to reflect a more socially
accepting policy, the threat to societal and national security would be
reduced.

If methods of legal entry were re-opened and less restrictive,

then those that wish to immigrate would not have to use illegal
methods that are exploitative by criminality. If this were changed, the
threat from international crime would be reduced, and the distinction
between those that wish to legally enter Europe from those that wish to
enflict terrorism upon the population becomes distinct.

CONCLUSION
Illegal immigration is a phenomenon that has been created
due to the nature of the 'realist' state structures. Illegal migration is only
so, because of the perceived threat that influxes of different societies
and culture create to the base of power for governments and
individuals. The 'securitization' of illegal immigration therefore is
nothing new, however, with the threat of the 'new-wave' of
international terrorism that we see today, illegal immigration has
become merged and labelled as similar. The right-wing has been able to
use the language of security to exploit fear within the nation-state to
protect their power base.
The confrontational, aggressive and militaristic approaches
that Europe has taken to attempt to reduce illegal immigration has had
little affect. In order to produce sustainable security for Europe,
preventative measures need to be seriously re-addressed along with the
nature of the EU. The question of full sovereignty, intervention and the

Student Number: 041439968

state are all issues that need to be re-assessed progressively to produce a

safe and secure Europe, that does not have a frontier mentality within a
fortress Europe. But is a socially accepting and genuinely peacful
Europe.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Boswell, C. (2003). European Migration Policies In Flux Changing
Patters of Inclusion and Exclusion. UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Cole, P. (2000). Philosophies of Exclusion. UK: Edinburgh University
Press Ltd.
Geddes, A. (2000). Immigration and European Integration Towards
Fortress Europe?. Manchester: MUP
Harris, N. (2002). Thinking the Unthinkable: The Immigration Myth
Exposed. UK: I.B. Tawris and Co. Ltd.
Leech, J. (2002). Asymmetries of Conflict War without Death. London:
Frank Cass Publishers
Wver, O. Buzan, B. Kelstrup, M. And Lemaitre, P. (1993). Identity,
Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe. London: Pinter
Publishers Ltd.
Wheeler, N. (2000). Saving Strangers Humanitarian Intervention in
International Society. Oxford: OUP
Aspects of Britain: Human Rights (1992). HMSO
Online Sources
Bunyan, T. (2005) 'While Europe sleeps under the "war on terrorism"
a veneer of democracy is legitimating the creation of a coercive and
secret state.' http://www.ecln.org/essays/essay-11.pdf (accessed Feb. 27Th
Student Number: 041439968

10

2006)
Ekete,
L.
(2005)
'Speech
Crime
and
deportation'
http://www.ecln.org/essays/essay-2.pdf (accessed Feb. 20Th 2006)
Mathiesen, T. (2005) 'Towards a control system without a state?'
http://www.ecln.org/essays/essay-7.pdf (accessed Feb. 28Th 2006)
Glatti, B and Busch, H. (2005) 'Switzerland votes in favour of accession to
Schengen: a defeat for civil liberties' http://www.ecln.org/essays/essay10.pdf (accessed Feb. 20Th 2006)
BBC News website
HYPERLINK
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/I/hi/world/4681919.stm"http://news.bbc.co.uk/I/hi/world/46819
1
9
.
s
t
m
(
a
c
c
e
s
s
e
d
F
e
b
.
2
0
T
h

2
0
0

Student Number: 041439968

11