The securization of migration, Ejercicios de Filosofía

¡Descarga The securization of migration y más Ejercicios en PDF de Filosofía solo en Docsity! Student ID number: 51877031 INTRODUCTION International security debates have undergone major transformations over the last two decades. Since the end of the Cold War, the doctrine of national security has been giving way to human security, a new term that sees the individual as to be protected against increasingly global and complex threats. Parallel to the expansion of the security doctrine to new fields, there has been a transformation of the government of migration into a security issue. Furthermore, this issue has been highly politicised and related to the migrant crises that have cost the loss of numerous lives, such as the famous EU migrant crises in the Mediterranean during the last years. Taking into account the global view, the study of the security-migration nexus in the EU, a supranational and intergovernmental entity, brings out the complexity of the phenomena, in forms of discourses, relations between state and non-state actors, and security practices around the government of migration. In this essay, I will critically analyse 4 academic articles on the topic of the securitization of migration in the EU. GLOBAL MIGRATION: A NEW POST-COLD WAR CONCEPT In this first section, I will analyse the concept of migration used by the authors, as it has novelty connotations specifically linked to the securitization of migration. The literature assumes that since the conclusion of the Cold War, global and more broadly post- national processes have evolved to the point where borders have lost a significant amount of influence in banking and commerce, cultural production, and political governance(Bello:2022). In terms of migration, the political status of immigrants in Western European countries was not a relevant or contentious political discussion. It was not considered an emergency concern, although there were immigration regulations, and the increase in restrictive measures in the 1970s was prompted by changes in the labour market and a determination to protect the domestic workforce's social and economic rights. (Huysmans: 2000).Therefore it is argued when discussing the securitization of migration, that although restrictions on people’s movements have always existed, the association of migration as a security issue is heavily connected to the global dimension that it acquired during the post-cold war. Scholars believe that migration is a worldwide phenomenon with numerous causes (Panebianco: 2022). Apart from people fleeing armed conflicts and persecutions based on their political beliefs, religion, sexual orientation, or nationality, there are other factors that force people to relocate and leave their home countries, such as environmental change, demographic pressure, or structural poverty. This can be especially noticed in the Mediterranean migration crisis, as crossroads for people migrating to Europe for a variety of reasons are prompted by global and local migration drivers. Nevertheless, political agents and discourses frame this migration influx in terms of crisis, which indicates an emergency and exception connotation, rather than a structural global phenomenon,(Panebianco: 2022). This provides the base on which the security migration nexus starts to be built. Moreover, Bello provides a definition of migratory crises viewed as a social construct: “Hence, we understand global migration crises as socially constructed scattered cognitions, such as prejudice and inclusivity, are the cause of the construction of the securitization process, then these phenomena (prejudice and inclusivity) can be taken into account and applied in the analysis both before and after securitization, resulting in self-reinforcing dynamics, and producing what we call a spiralling process of migration securitisation. (Bello:2022)This spiralling quality is the main thesis of the article, which is formulated inside this specific framework of securitization theory that focuses on discourses and the social construct of the concept. Relating to the constructivist approach to the securitization of the migration process, the theory of securitization from the Copenhagen school and its implications is discussed by Leonard. The Copenhagen School ontologically conceives security as a speech act saying that something represents a security threat is already the act. This happens when a government leader or a relevant actor in society - known as the securitising agent - pronounces on events, individuals or objects that in his or her view represent a threat and immediately displaces them into space - such as states of emergency - where it claims the right to employ all necessary security measures to counter them. Methodologically then, it concentrates on the study of that which is part of the illocutionary act - what is done in talking about security. Although this is only the first part because it is not concluded until a relevant audience accepts it as such, since the ability to define what is a threat is located in the relationship between actors. This is due to the constructivist approach -underlying the theory, which argues that there is an intersubjective establishment of existing threats between the securitisation agent and an audience, which enables and justifies the suspension of normal policies and the acceptance of the implementation of emergency measures.(Léonard:2010) However, perspective that prioritizes the analysis of securitization practises rather than discourses, is chosen, taking a more materialistic approach, using the theory frame from Bigo researches: “‘[i]t is possible to securiti[s]e certain problems without speech or discourse and the military and the police have known that for a long time. The practical work, discipline and expertise are as important as all forms of discourse.’ In other words, the acts of the bureaucratic structures or networks linked to security practices and the specific technologies that they use may play a more active role in securitisation processes than securitising speech acts”.(Léonard:2010)Although it is remarked that both views, analysis based on discourse or practises, can be reconciled, for space restrictions of the article a framework of practices will be used. Furthermore, it deems it for the object being analysed, securitisation processes in the EU asylum and migration policy, it is a more adequate perspective, “as new drama establishing securitisation is no longer necessary as securitisation has become institutionalised over time” and there are cases were a logic of securitization it’s at play, and discourses trying to justify it are made a posteriori. Huysmans also discusses the different aspects of the securitization theory. Whilst linking the Europeanization of migration as a previous event to the securitization process, he argues about the triggers of securitization being both discourses and practises: The securitization of migration is a structural effect of a multiplicity of practices. The evolution of security discourses and policies in the field of migration is frequently described as an unavoidable policy reaction to the challenges that increased numbers of (illegal) immigrants and asylum-seekers pose to public order and domestic stability. Therefore, this perspective focuses more on the construction of the securitization process through migrant policy in the security field rather than the social constructivist perception based on prejudices discussed before. On the other hand, practices are also given importance:” They are also defining practices which turn an issue like migration into a security problem by mobilizing specific institutions and expectations”(Huysmans: 2000). However, the author establishes that his theoretical framework will focus on the logic of securitization of migration inside the field of security, and how the Europeanization reproduces. Rather than investigating how this structural effect has been produced at a societal level, the focus is on the problematization of the migrant, as a threat and therefore a security problem. This analysis is used to explore the thesis proposed that the securitization of migration has been developing on 3 relating themes: internal security, cultural security and the crisis of the welfare state. Lastly, Panebianco takes the analytical framework that has been previously explored with Bello, as “the spiralling model explains the upwards and downwards of the migratory issue” and enumerates the reseasons why the securitisation of migration has spiralled after 2015, the year of migrant crises in the Mediterranean. The relationship between the politicization of migration and securitization is one of the key arguments, using a School of Copenhagen approach, therefore investigating the importance of political discourse in the EU. It also mentions the “School of Paris” approach, which focuses on routinised practices. Ergo, the framework is the same as that of Bello, although it is used to get deeper into the spiralling of the securitization thesis. migrant flows in their national territory. Discharging the EU border security authorities from what some authors call "dirty work", the EU also invests in training the third parties enforcers(police, coast guard lines) in security management of the migrants. (Panebianco: 2022) Furthermore, some scholars have stressed that the human security discourse has also sometimes been used to legitimise the tightening of borders in the name of migrants’ own “security”.(Bello:2022) Several organisations such as amnesty international have pointed out these practices have led to the violation of human rights and the right to seek asylum of migrants, as third countries do not either secure them or respect them(Panebianco). Nevertheless, this collaboration is viewed as a top priority for agents such as Frontex. In this account, Frontex is pointed out in the literature as an important securitization agent, and its practices are analysed by Leonard closely, and it is concluded that Frontex shows securitization discourse in its reports, which also found securitization practices and even promotes this agenda to be inserted in the management of borders and migrants on the EU state members:” The securitisation of border controls has been so blatant that the same EU agency Frontex presented a clearly securitised language in its own reports, in which the vocabulary used to depict migrants had become completely dehumanised”(Léonard:2010) Even though, it is advised to not overestimate the role of FRONTEX as an independent securitization agent, as it is mainly shaped by the EU policies. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: A HUMANITARIAN APPROACH? In the last section of this critical review, I will address the policy implications of the papers. For the most part, the securitization of the migration process in the EU is viewed with a critical lens, and the articles explored clearly are attempting to deconstruct it. This process maintains a radical political approach of reifying some groups of people as a threat in order to exclude them. Huysmans critiques that supporting the creation of unstable variables and hazards in rules governing community membership makes it more difficult for immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees to integrate into the EU. It also has an impact on the community's promotion of solidarity, social integration, cultural identity, politeness, and public order. In other articles, a more humanitarian approach is promoted in order to deconstruct the idea of migrants as a threat. Effective control systems and the intervention of public non-state actors such as NGOs to prevent prejudicial cognitions from interfering with the management of human mobility are encouraged (Bello:2022) Panebianco also critiques that “closing the EU borders and externalising the management of migration to non-state actors and to neighbour countries. Disrespectful of the needs and security of people on the move across the Mediterranean Sea.”(2022) It also points out that politicians such as Victor Oban or Matteo Salvini are “obsessed” with the defence of EU borders construct the securitization rhetoric and overwhelm the humanitarian dimension of the migrant crises, which therefore is the adequate one. Finally, although Leonard defined FRONTEX as a securitization actor that violates the human rights of migrants into the EU, notes that “Regulation could also reinforce the trend that is still modest, but that has recently developed in FRONTEX’s activities, to also consider human rights issues when seeking to strengthen border security”. (Léonard:2010) CONCLUSION AND RELFEXIONS. In this essay, I have analysed the existing literature on the topic of the securitization of migration in the EU. Firstly, I have explored the concept of global migration after the cold war that is used in this specific process and how is explained by the scholars, and how its global nature is closely linked with the securitization of the migration process. Secondly, I have addressed how securitization theory works as a framework in each one of the articles, either from a constructivist point of view or a more materialistic one that prioritizes practises over discourses. Thirdly, I have highlighted the proofs and consequences of securitization of migration in the case study around the fields of border security and migration management and the practices of the FRONTEX European agency. Finally, I pointed out a humanitarian approach as an implied policy in the papers reviewed. Reflecting on the work done, I can conclude that research has closely investigated the subject from different angles and achieved investigating the highly complex sides of the phenomena, such as discourses, roles of agents, either state or non-state actors, policies and practices. However, on a final note, I would like to point out the lack of study of the role of the immigrant as a political independent actor, and how it plays out in the securitization of the migration process. I believe the topic would benefit from further research on the immigrants' responses and resistance practices, and a focus that recognizes their agency. BIBLIOGRAPHY: