Document Type : Original Article from Result of Thesis
Highlights
Introduction
Following the events of September 11 and the 2015 refugee crisis, the issue of migration in Europe underwent a fundamental transformation, shifting from a primarily humanitarian or social concern to a pivotal security challenge. Under securitization discourses, migration was redefined as an existential threat to the sovereignty, identity, culture, economic stability, and physical security of European societies. This shift, known in political literature as the "securitization of migration," stems from the efforts of security actors—including governments, politicians, and the media—to move migration from the realm of "normal politics" into the sphere of "extraordinary measures."
In the European context, migratory waves are often portrayed through metaphors such as "floods" or "invasions" rather than demographic or economic challenges. Prior to the 2000s, the dominant focus was on social and economic integration. However, recent crises and the rise of radical movements have led to migrants—particularly Muslims—being framed as abusers of the welfare system and threats to national security. Drawing on the Copenhagen School, this article analyzes the process by which migration has been transformed into a security threat and examines its consequences for European Union policymaking.
Conceptual Framework and Theoretical Foundations (The Copenhagen School)
The securitization theory of the Copenhagen School, developed by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde, emphasizes the social and discursive aspects of security. According to this theory, security is a "speech act." This occurs when an influential actor claims that a specific issue threatens the survival of a "referent object" (such as the state or identity), thereby initiating the securitization process. The success of this process depends on "audience acceptance," which grants the securitizing actor the legitimacy to bypass normal political procedures and implement extraordinary measures.
In this research, the concepts of "societal security" and "macro-securitization" play a central role. Societal security refers to a society's ability to maintain its essential identity (language, culture, and religion) under changing conditions. Macro-securitization is a process that organizes micro-level security concerns under a broader umbrella, such as the "War on Terror." Following 9/11, migration was placed within the global discourse of counter-terrorism. Consequently, border control and asylum restrictions became part of the logic of "civilizational survival" for the West. This causal chain begins with a speech act, gains societal acceptance, and ultimately manifests in policy feedback and stringent enforcement.
Research Findings: Mechanisms of Securitization in Europe
Research findings indicate that the securitization of migration in Europe is a discursive-structural process driven by an alliance between right-wing parties and the media. Key actors, such as Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Matteo Salvini in Italy, and Marine Le Pen in France, have linked migration to concepts like "cultural insecurity," "loss of national identity," and "terrorist threats." These actors frequently employ martial metaphors to represent migrants as a "dangerous Other."
The media plays a critical role in this dynamic by highlighting crimes, focusing on economic burdens, and using provocative language to create a climate of public fear. For instance, British tabloids have frequently used the term "illegal" to frame asylum seekers as "invaders" of the welfare system. Analysis of data from 2022–2024 shows a surge in the importance of migration in European public opinion and the normalization of anti-immigrant discourse. According to authoritative reports, the "Us vs. Them" narrative holds a 30.7% share of online discourse, reflecting the extreme polarization of the field.
This securitization manifests across four primary dimensions:
1. National and Political Security: Linking migration to terrorism to justify increased police surveillance.
2. Identity and Culture: Representing migrants (especially Muslims) as a threat to Christian heritage and European values.
3. Economic Stability: Portraying migrants as a drain on welfare systems.
4. Sovereignty and Borders: Emphasizing the militarization of borders (e.g., the Frontex agency) to restore state authority.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study confirms that the securitization of migration in Europe is not an inevitable consequence of objective facts, but rather the product of a social and discursive construction. The ultimate consequence of this trend has been a shift in the European Union's approach—moving away from humanitarian solidarity toward border militarization, the passage of restrictive laws (such as the 2023 French immigration bill), the outsourcing of migration control to third countries, and the intensification of xenophobia and Islamophobia. This feedback loop ensures that security infrastructures, in turn, reinforce public perceptions of threat.
The significance of this article for the Iranian academic and executive space lies in elevating migration from a mere administrative or policing issue to a logic of foreign policy production. For a country like Iran, situated at the center of geopolitical tensions and facing waves of refugees, a failure in "discursive management" can rapidly link migration to threats of security infiltration, smuggling, and sanctions, pushing the country toward costly "extraordinary policies." This framework helps Iranian policymakers understand that the intelligent management of migration requires a balance between border security necessities and avoiding "discursive traps" that could lead to diplomatic isolation or exorbitant foreign policy costs. Ultimately, managing migration requires less of a focus on "hard" tools and more on a precise understanding of how security discourses are formulated within larger strategic frameworks.
