Advertisement

The Rhetoric of European Migration Policy and Its Role in Criminalization of Migration

  • Tjaša UčakarEmail author
Chapter
  • 8 Downloads
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 81)

Abstract

European migration policy frames migration predominantly as a securitarian issue and thus paints migrants as a threat to the established order of the EU. Even though the most recent documents use more liberal and humane rhetoric, the underlying assumptions about migration have not changed, and, furthermore, are getting even more difficult to recognise. This chapter demonstrates how the European migration policy has undergone some discursive changes since the pre-Maastricht period until today. Whereas the softening of discourse could, on the one hand, lead to less restrictive measures within migration policy, it, on the other hand, establishes a new field where foreignness is produced, and membership and belonging of migrants in the EU are delineated. These discursive shifts, despite exhibiting a widening of themes and terminology, including integration of new sensitivities, and ostensibly suggesting a picture of greater liberalism and humanitarianism, do not ultimately change the hierarchy of fundamental values, as all newly introduced themes remain subordinate to the current securitarian priorities. Furthermore, it is becoming even more challenging to detect the criminalisation of migrants within this changed field of political discourse, which is characterised not only by repressive aspects of power but also by affirmative discourses of fundamental European values, such as the protection of human lives and other humanitarian ideals.

References

  1. Albahari M (2015) Crimes of peace: Mediterranean migrations at the world’s deadliest border. University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aliverti A (2012) Making people criminal: the role of the criminal law in immigration enforcement. Theor Criminol 16(4):417–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babayan D (2011) Balancing security and development in migration policy: EU mobility partnerships. Natolin best Master thesis. College of Europe Natolin CampusGoogle Scholar
  4. Balibar É (2007) Mi, državljani Evrope? Meje, država, ljudstvo. Sophia, LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauman Z (1999) Modernity and the holocaust. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Bigo D (2005) Frontier controls in the European Union: who is in control? In: Bigo D, Guild E (eds) Controlling frontiers: free movement into and within Europe. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 49–99Google Scholar
  7. Bigo D, Guild E (2005a) Policing at a distance: Schengen visa policies. In: Bigo D, Guild E (eds) Controlling frontiers: free movement into and within Europe. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 233–263Google Scholar
  8. Bigo D, Guild E (2005b) Introduction—policing in the name of freedom. In: Bigo D, Guild E (eds) Controlling frontiers: free movement into and within Europe. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  9. Broeders D (2007) The new digital borders of Europe: EU databases and the surveillance of irregular migrants. Int Sociol 22(1):71–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown W (2010) Walled states, waning sovereignty. Zone Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Calavita K (2005) Immigrants at the margins: law, race, and exclusion in Southern Europe. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chouliaraki L (2012) The ironic spectator: solidarity in the age of post-humanitarianism. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (1985) Accessed May 11, 2016. http://www.mzz.gov.si/fileadmin/pageuploads/konzulara/Schengenski_izvedbeni_sporazum_-_slo.pdf
  14. Cuttitta P (2015) Humanitarianism and migration in the Mediterranean borderscape: the Italian-North African border between sea patrols and integration measures. In: Brambilla C, Laine J, Bocchi G (eds) Borderscaping: imaginations and practices of border making. Ashgate, London, pp 131–140Google Scholar
  15. De Giorgi A (2010) Immigration control, post-fordism, and less eligibility: a materialist critique of the criminalization of immigration across Europe. Punish Soc 12(2):147–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Düvell F (2006) Illegal immigration in Europe: beyond control? Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Council Conclusions (2014) http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-79-2014-INIT/sl/pdf. Accessed 11 May 2016
  18. Fairclough N (2003) Analysing discourse textual analysis for social research. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fassin D (2005) Compassion and repression: the moral economy of immigration policies in France. Cult Anthropol 20(3):362–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fine B (2009) Development as zombieconomics in the age of neo-liberalism. Third World Q 30(5):885–904Google Scholar
  21. Guild E (2009) Security and migration in the 21st Century. Polity, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Hayes B, Vermeulen M (2012) Borderline—the EU’s new border surveillance initiatives. Heinrich Böll Foundation, Study. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2012/jun/borderline.pdf
  23. Huysmans J (2000) The European Union and the securitization of migration. J Common Market Stud 38(5):751–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones R (2017) Violent borders: refugees and the right to move. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Melossi D (2003) ‘In a peaceful life’: migration and the crime of modernity in Europe/Italy. Punish Soc 5(4):371–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mezzadra S, Neilson B (2013) Border as method, or, the multiplication of labor. Duke University Press, Durham (North Carolina)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moreno Lax V (2018) The EU humanitarian border and the securitization of human rights: the ‘Rescue-through-interdiction/rescue-without-protection’ Paradigm. J Common Market Stud 56(1):1–19–140Google Scholar
  28. Pallister-Wilkins P (2017) Humanitarian rescue/sovereign capture and the policing of possible: responses to violent borders. Glob Policy 8(1):19–24Google Scholar
  29. Pallitto R, Heyman J (2008) Theorizing cross-border mobility: surveillance, security and identity. Surveil Soc 5(3):315–333Google Scholar
  30. Parker O (2013) Cosmopolitan government in Europe: citizens and entrepreneurs in postnational politics. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Philo G (2007) Can discourse analysis successfully explain the content of media and journalistic practice? J Stud 8(2):175–196Google Scholar
  32. Philo G, Berry M (2004) Bad news from Israel. Pluto Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Sassen S (2000) Guests and aliens. The New Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Stumpf JP (2006) The crimmigration crisis: immigrants, crime, & sovereign power. Bepress legal series (paper 1635). http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1274&context=aulr
  35. Tampere European Council (1999, 15 and 16 October) Presidency conclusions 1999. Accessed May 11, 2016. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/tam_en.htm
  36. The European Agenda on Security (2015) COM (2015) 185 final. Accessed May 11, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/basic-documents/docs/eu_agenda_on_security_en.pdf
  37. Triandafyllidou A (2010) Irregular migration in Europe in the early 21st century. In: Triandafyllidou A (ed) Irregular migration in Europe: myths and realities. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  38. Tsoukala A (2005) Looking at migrants as enemies. In: Bigo D, Guild E (eds) Controlling frontiers: free movement into and within Europe. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 161–192Google Scholar
  39. van Dijk T (2002) Multidisciplinary CDA: a plea for diversity. In: Wodak R, Meyer M (eds) Methods of critical discourse analysis. Sage, London, pp 95–120Google Scholar
  40. Walters W (2004) The frontiers of the European Union: a geostrategic perspective. Geopolitics 9(3):674–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walters W (2006) Rethinking borders beyond the state. Comp Eur Polit 4(2–3):141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wodak R (2006) Mediation between discourse and society: assessing cognitive approaches in CDA. Discourse Stud 8(1):179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ArtsUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations