Date of submission: 01-06-2014

Date of submission:

03-11-2014

Submitted to:

Dr. A S M Ali Ashraf

Associate Professor

Department of International Relations

University of Dhaka

Submitted by:

Md. Shahin Ali

Roll. ZH-1085

4th batch, M.S.S 2nd Semester, Session: 2013-14

Department of International Relations

University of Dhaka

Securitization of European Union Immigration Policy since 9/11

Key words

Immigration, terrorism,

European Union, Policy,

Securitization, Muslim

Communities.

Abstract

The process of securitization in Europe has been intensified following the 9/11

terrorist attacks due to the insertion of an ideological aspect to the issue by

relating migration with national security threat posed by the immigrant and

home grown terrorist. EU countries while taking strict measure to halt the flow

and redress the pressure of immigration in their respective countries as well as

coordinating to the EU policy apparatus to construct more so called secure

Europe. These policies regarding immigration has been consolidated since the

creation of European Union but the recent rise of Eurosceptic parties after the

9/11 matter for it reinforced the securitization of asylum and immigration and

it has escalated securitization manifested both qualitative and quantitative

change. Several academic writing has been come up to illustrate this new trend

to grind down every aspect of immigration on how the state and EU are

contending immigration to their national security. It is clear that most of the

policies targeted towards the Muslim communities there after 9/11 attack. The

countries not only taking measure against the changed domestic politics

national concern they are also pressing EU to do the same. In the future there is

little chance that immigration policy will welcome immigrants from the non-

European countries and the life of the immigrant in Europe will the same as it

was before 9/11.

Cont.

no.

Contents Page

1. Introduction 1

2. Research Questions and methodology: 1-2

3. Literature review 2-4

4.

Major trends of EU Immigration policies and policies in

action

5-6

5. Key Changes in immigration policy after 9/11 6-9

6.

The securitization of immigration: and its

institutionalization in EU policies

10-12

7. Theoretical implication of the study: 12-14

7.1

7.2

7.3

The Copenhagen School and securitization concept

State-Centric Approaches and intergovernmentalism

Neo- Functionalist theory and European integration

on immigration policy

8. Case study: The Netherlands and United Kingdom 14-19

8.1

8.2

UK immigration policy since 9/11N

The Netherlands immigration policy since 9/11

9. Future of EU immigration policy 19-20

10. Conclusions 20

Page1

1. Introduction

Migration has been discussed extensively in recent years especially after the 9/11 aerial attacks on

the European soil and the subsequent attack on Madrid and London. A significant number of

studies, from different ideological and political origins has sprouted ideas about several aspects of

migration and making its impacts on the national and social security of European member states.

European Union, the largest and most successful regional organization, has pursued a common

immigration policy since its inception but with the advent of 9/11 sparked a new era of immigration

policy for Europe. National leaders in Europe made a swift response to these events afterwards in

drafting immigration policies. Immigration has been largely seen as a possible security threat for

Europe linking it with terrorism and social disturbance which has profound imprint for immigrants

as well as European immigration policies which is described in the literature as the securitizing of

the migration policy. Securitization of EU immigration policies also have several socio economic

and ideological aspect. This paper explores to what extent the rhetoric of securitization has been

utilized in the development of migration policies since the attacks of 9/11 after reviewing the

extensive literature reviews mostly from secondary data source. It will also make a carefully study

about why this scenario actually taken place, what are the changes and trends in European

Immigration policies and how securitization of migration constitutes a greater impact in the lives

of millions of immigrants in various European countries. This paper makes a careful study

regarding the interactive nature of the EU policies how it is pushed by the national imperatives of

its member states and international security imperatives and how these countries actually adopting

the EU policies coordinating the policies in their respective legislature. Then the study sketches

the theoretical implication of the study. It will especially stress on the policies developed aftermath

of the 9/11 attack and the subsequent security debate in the two powerful member states of EU

United kingdom and the Netherlands as case studies . And at the last chapters it denotes some

future trends and factors that will of EU immigration policy securitization debate in the future

before concluding this paper.

2. Research Questions and methodology:

How the immigration policy of European Union and its member states become securities

since 9/11?

To answer this question this paper will also answer few other related questions.

What are the Major trends and key changes in EU immigration policy?

Which factors are stimulating these policies towards securitization?

To what extent the member states are adjusting their immigration policy in this change

scenario of 21st century?

What areas it affected most and in what ways?

Page2

The method of this study is that it largely depend on secondary data sources to analyze the issue

of securitization of European Union immigration policies. It will state the problems reviewing the

written literatures (books, journals, articles, supplementary statements, historic documents etc) on

the topic and reviewed literatures will be filtered to reconstruct theory linked to the reality and

accomplish this paper.

The limitations of the study can be said as there is no primary data sources though I have taken

few unstructured interview of few European friends of mine whom I met in Bangladesh and there

is no primary data regarding the views of the migrants there or the views of any EU official. And

time constrain also be said as the biggest challenge to conduct this research from a more well-

structured way to make it more constructive.

3. Literature review

Since 9/11 the world not only changed the security scenario but it also induced the academic world

to illustrate the development from the academic perspective and sprout new insight and dynamism

of immigration and national security and how these changed scenario actually influencing the EU

and its member states to take restrictive policies and its impact on the immigration patterns in

Europe and the existing community there in European countries.

Terri Givens and Adam Luedtke (2004) in their respective journal article” The Politics of

European Union Immigration Policy: Institutions, Salience, and Harmonization” has

examined the recent attempts to create a common European Union (EU) immigration policy and

how these has faced political blockage by the member states in various issue. These restrictive

perspective has in later made EU to adopt few restrictive policies to maintain its integration and

satisfy the party’s interest. Stating the problem” Immigration is a crucial political issue in the

European Union (EU), both because of its electoral impact, which has led to the rise of new parties

and challenges to existing party systems”1 the authors then provide a set of policy areas where the

member states interest and the goal of the EU diverge or converge. Here the see EU immigration

policymaking is bottom-up in that it sees immigration policy institutions as arising from domestic

politics and national immigration policies. As the interest of the most of the member states and the

political parties in Europe are more against flexible immigration policy EU is adopting the

restrictive policies to tight its boarder for the immigrants and taking special institutional measure

to consolidate these policies. Stating these scenario then they has developed several model to test

their hypothesis as the harmonization of on asylum, legal and illegal migration and visas and

boarder control, integration and anti-discrimination and various other immigration policies are

actually guided by the domestic political interest of its member states which make Europe more

restrictive for the possible immigrant around the country where non-European economic migrants

become the prime target.

Terri E. Givensm (2012) in another article “Immigration and National Security:

Comparing the US and Europe” discusses the role that immigration plays in the development

1 Terri Givens and Adam Luedtke, The Politics of European Union Immigration Policy: Institutions, Salience, and Harmonization,

The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2004.Accessed on October 16, 2014.

http://aei.pitt.edu/2862/1/111.pdf

Page3

of national security policy discusses the role that immigration plays in the development of

national security policy demonstrating the significant differences in how migration issues play

out in the US and Europe and its underling factors.

“The main reason that immigration reform in the US is so difficult is the fact that the public

has difficulty seeing beyond the cultural and ideational issues raised by the flow of people, whereas

border control is a clear security issue. In Europe, the visibility of immigrants and concerns about

cultural homogeneity, as seen in the popularity of populist anti-immigrant parties, keeps the focus

of securitization on the integration of immigrants.”2

Here the author stirred up the existing literature to trace the view on this issue stressing on the

issue that either the securitization started before or after 9/11. This article articulated the laws and

policies taken at EU level after 9/11 and the character was mostly restrictive in nature influence

by the parochial concern of the EU members.

Sedef EYLEMER and Sühal ŞEMŞİT (2007) have sketched the scenario in present

Europe regarding Immigration policy and its connection with security in the article “Migration-

Security Nexus in the Euro-Mediterranean Relations” by analyzing the Euro-Mediterranean

relations and the flight of immigration from these country to the edge of the Europe.

“In this new era, discourses have started increasingly to concentrate on the destabilizing

effects of migration on public order, cultural identity, and domestic and labor market stability in

the European countries. Therefore, the issue of migration has been subject to a process of

securitization.”3

The process of securitization of migration in the Euro-Mediterranean relations has also come to

the forefront and has been intensified following the 9/11 terrorist attacks due to the insertion of an

ideological aspect to the issue by relating migration with the “perceived Islamic threat.

The emergence of security discourses and policies regarding migration issues is generally

illustrated as an unavoidable policy reaction to the challenges posed by the growing number of

“illegal” immigrants to the “public order and domestic stability”. From this perspective, the

security problem leads to a security policy on migration issues. Accordingly, the security policy

occurs as an “instrumental reaction” to defend the state, society and the internal market”.4

Arne Niemann (2012) the Oxford scholar in his writing, The Dynamics of EU Migration Policy:

From Maastricht to Lisbon, has illustrated how thee immigration policy become Europeanized

before and after 9/11. Here the author backed his arguments through theories and approach

underlying the EU integration through various treaties and policy concerning migration into

Europe. This writing “explain this development of EU migration policy. Drawing on a revised

neo-functionalist framework. Four factors are suggested to account for processes of

2 Terri E. Givens, Immigration and National Security: Comparing the US and Europe, the Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and

International Relations, 2012. http://www.euc.illinois.edu/eucdw2011/documents/GivensUSEUJournalofDiplomacy2010.pdf

3 Sedef Eylemer - Sühal Şemşit, Migration-security nexus in the Euro-Mediterranean relations, Perceptions, Summer-Autumn

2007 accessed on October 26, 2014 http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/EylemerSemsit.pdf 4 Ibid

Page4

Europeanization in this field: (a) functional pressures; (b) the role of supranational institutions; (c)

socialization, deliberation, and learning processes; and (d) countervailing pressures.”5

These factors provide a robust framework for an analysis of the past three Treaty revision

(Amsterdam, Nice, and Lisbon) negotiations concerning the Europeanization of migration policy.

Sarah Leonard (2007) the UK scholar in her article “The ‘Securitization’ of Asylum and

Migration in the European Union: Beyond the Copenhagen School’s Framework,” examines

the impact of the activities of FRONTEX, the Agency in charge of managing operational

cooperation at the external borders of the European Union (EU), to the securitization of asylum

and migration in the EU after identifying two main types of securitizing practices in general, the

article systematically examines the activities of FRONTEX and the extent to which they can be

seen as securitizing practices on the basis of these two (non-mutually exclusive) criteria. The

article shows that all the main activities of FRONTEX can be considered to be securitizing

practices. It strongly stressed that the activities of FRONTEX contribute to a significant extent to

the ongoing securitization of asylum and migration in the EU. It also highlights that this does not

automatically make FRONTEX a significant securitizing actor in its own right and that more

research is needed on the relations between FRONTEX and the EU institutions, especially in the

light of the current negotiations aiming to amend the founding Regulation of FRONTEX6.

Dace Schlentz (2010) in his working paper; “Did 9/11 matter? Securitization of asylum and

immigration in the European Union in the period from1992 to 2008” make a comparative study

of policies that EU introduced before and after 9/11 and the imperative that induced the EU

countries to converge their national interest at EU level to consolidate the immigration policy

which are mostly restrictive in nature. Though the process of securitizing immigration policy

before the 9/11 aerial attacks these policy gained much popular support as a result of these and the

politicians reap up the fruit of this turbulent situation to integrate the policies at EU level taking

both institutional and national level implication and this give EU new era of consolidation.

Special focus of this study was to define the security concerns from the earlier approaches such as

the Copenhagen school and Paris school this paper pointed out three specific domains where the

securitization actually happened7.

i. Politics, policy-making and legislation

ii. Technological solutions

iii. Institutional, administrative and operational set-ups and practices.

5 Arne Niemann, The Dynamics of EU Migration Policy: From Maastricht to Lisbon, Oxford University Press, 2012. Accessed

on October 17, 2014. http://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb02-internationale-beziehungen/files/2013/02/Niemann-2012-EU-

migration-policy.pdf

6 Sarah Leonard, “The ‘Securitization’ of Asylum and Migration in the European Union: Beyond the Copenhagen School’s

Framework,” September, 2007), http://turin.sgir.eu/uploads/Leonard-sgir_conference_paper_final_sleonard.pdf

7 Dace Schlentz, Did 9/11 matter? Securitization of asylum and immigration in the European Union in the period from1992 to

2008, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, January 2010. Accessed on September 15, 2014.

http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/publications/working-paper-series/wp56-did-911-matter-2010.pdf

Page5

4. Major trends of EU Immigration policies and policies in action

The 1957 Treaty of Rome was the basis for the establishment of a European immigration policy,

but from this time period until the 1990s a common immigration policy was not created. The

European Union allowed nation states to handle migration flows individually and therefore final

decisions concerning immigration lay with nation states.

The Single European Act (SEA), signed in 1986 aimed at bringing about the single market

envisaged in the EEC Treaty of 1957 through abolition of all controls among the Member States

(MS) on the movement of goods, persons, services and capital.

Agreement Implementing the Schengen Convention (CISA) unlike the first Schengen Agreement,

expressly linked immigration and asylum with terrorism, transnational crime and border control

and laid down detailed provisions on the fight against illegal immigration.

In 1992, the Treaty on European Union or Maastricht Treaty as it is commonly referred to, brought

asylum and immigration affairs into the remit of the newly established European Union. The

subsequent Treaty of Amsterdam, adopted in 1997 codified the nexus of asylum–migration–

security through the establishment of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), ‘in which

the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to

external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime’ (Treaty

of Amsterdam Article B).

Thus, examination of the Treaty basis of cooperation in this field demonstrates that securitization

of asylum and immigration by means of pooling them with security issues in a security continuum

was established by the Maastricht Treaty and confirmed by Amsterdam Treaty, which codified the

asylum-migration-security nexus in the AFSJ. This is of paramount importance, as the Treaties

constitute the very foundation of EU work, competence and identity.8

The table below shows the major policies and laws on immigration take place at the outset of EU

level

Date Key event

1990

Schengen Convention signed to implement the Schengen Agreement of 1985

whereby a subset of EC member states agreed to remove controls at their internal

borders

1990

Dublin Convention determined the state responsible for asylum applications

lodged in one of the Community member states

1992

Treaty of Maastricht: established intergovernmental cooperation on justice and

home affairs within the third pillar of the Treaty on European Union

1995 Schengen Convention came into effect

1997

Treaty of Amsterdam: immigration and asylum policy switched to the first pillar;

8 Dace Schlentz, Did 9/11 matter? Securitization of asylum and immigration in the European Union in the period from1992 to

2008, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, January 2010. Accessed on September 15, 2014.

http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/publications/working-paper-series/wp56-did-911-matter-2010.pdf

Page6

A five-year deadline was established for adopting (minimum standards) on a

number of issues, including asylum reception, refugee recognition, and temporary

protection; Schengen Convention integrated into the EU Treaty.

1999

Tampere European Council (five year action plan: 1999–2004): called for a

‘common European asylum system’, partnerships with countries of origin, fair

treatment of third-country nationals, and measures to stem irregular migration

2000–2004

Adoption of EU legislation on:

Minimum standards on granting temporary protection (directive, 2001)

Dublin II (new Dublin Convention) (regulation, 2003)

Minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers (directive, 2003)

Minimum standards for the qualification of refugees (directive, 2004)

Minimum standards on asylum procedures (directive, 2004)

2001 Treaty of Nice: some extension of qualified majority voting on migration issues

2004 Hague Programme: set out a new five-year action plan (2005–2009) that built on

asylum system; restated the goal of a balanced approach to migration management

with measures to tackle illegal immigration; proposed to work with member states

at improving immigrant integration policies

2005

Frontex set up in Warsaw to coordinate operational coordination at the EU’s

external border.

2009

Stockholm Action Plan: set the legislative agenda for 2010–2014 and committed

the EU to (a) a global approach based on partnership with third countries; (b)

common rules on family reunification; (c) a real system for sharing responsibility

for refugees across the Union; (d) uniform international protection status

2009

Treaty of Lisbon: marked the full communitarization of migration policy within

the Treaty framework; asylum and immigration became ‘normal’ EU issues, with

QMV in the Council, co-decision of the European Parliament, and full jurisdiction

of the European Court of Justice.

2011 Single Permit Directive introduces a single residence and work permit for all non-

EU citizens.

Source: Arne Niemann, The Dynamics of EU Migration Policy.9

5. Key Changes in immigration policy after 9/11

The history of European migration has moved away from economics and migration issues to

become politicized with the advent of 9/11 make it more complex and The European Union has

been struggling since then to cope up with this new scenario which actually lead the policies

towards more rigorous channel centering Brussels. Concerning policies and legislation on

9 Arne Niemann, The Dynamics of EU Migration Policy: From Maastricht to Lisbon, Oxford University Press, 2012. Accessed

on October 17, 2014.

http://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb02-internationale-beziehungen/files/2013/02/Niemann-2012-EU-migration-policy.pdf

Page7

immigration and asylum, the pre-9/11 period is mainly characterized by early attempts at

harmonization and a resulting broad range of nonbinding measures, which nevertheless are

significant as they determined the basis and nature of the subsequent supranationalzed cooperation.

As the Twin Towers crumbled, a day in history was being marked, and it was later said the world

would never be the same as it was before the terror attacks of 9/11. The prototypical security event

was immediately politicized as an exceptional and global threat to the United States (US) and the

Western World, giving rise to sweeping political moves, policy-making, exceptional legislation,

and military action. Attacks of 9/11 had a far-reaching impact on the way the EU would shape its

migration policies; that the nexus between migration and asylum policy on the one hand and

security concerns on the other hand became more prominent.

Firstly, 9/11 did matter for it reinforced the securitization of asylum and immigration. Secondly,

it contends that the escalated securitization manifested both qualitative and quantitative change.

Quantitative change is found in the political discourse, in the output of asylum and immigration

related policies and legislation, in the progressive tightening of borders, and multiplication of

technological fixes and surveillance mechanisms. Qualitative change is identified in the reduction

of the scope of questions surrounding the development of the Area of Freedom, Security and

Justice, in the establishment of a permanent state of emergency, in the quality of the protection of

asylum-seekers, in the use of and access to the technological fixes, in the highly politicized role of

immigration in the foreign policies of the EU, in the heavily restricted legal entry options and the

new salience of the fight against illegal immigration. It is contended, however, that 9/11 provided

for new forms of re-conceptualization of asylum and immigration as security threats, legitimizing

adoption and use of approaches that had previously been only debated upon, and that the terror

attacks were instrumental in strengthening the hold of the control state and subordination of

freedom and justice to the concept of security.10

The events of 9/11 clearly caused a huge shock in Europe, and many European countries quite

rapidly concluded that similar attacks could occur on their territory. There was an immediate

recognition that the attacks involved an international network of activists operating across borders

and moving between countries. Muslim immigrant in Europe felt the heat most because the policies

taken mostly focusing on the Muslim community especially in Western Europe. Countries imposed

heavy restriction on entry for Muslim, retaining communities find themselves in tremendous

pressure to comply with the new set of rules and obligation to follow which further disintegrated

them from the mainstream society as they perceive these bindings against the Muslim community

and hatred towards them and as a means of discrimination upon them. As the path of legal

migration were encroached so it saw a dramatic increases in sheer numbers of immigrants

compounded by increasing amounts of immigrants, growing skepticism concerning

multiculturalist ideologies, and perceived potential threats of terrorism or radical extremism. Most

of the member states started to revise their immigration policy more scrutinize than ever before

10 Dace Schlentz, Did 9/11 matter? Securitization of asylum and immigration in the European Union in the period from1992 to

2008, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, January 2010. Accessed on September 15, 2014.

http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/publications/working-paper-series/wp56-did-911-matter-2010.pdf

Page8

Muslims as well as other communities live there felt in immense pressure of deportation for this

new scenario.

United States and Netherlands, France, Germany and other big countries are in the front of these

lines to revise their policy in line with the new context of national security. Several restrictive

policies were taken in these countries, e.g since 2004 the age at which a person can bring over a

partner has been raised from 18 to 21, and the partner residing in the Netherlands must earn 120%

of the legal minimum wage. Before 9/11 there was a trend of relatively favorable treatment of

immigrants in Germany. In 2004 the first Immigration Law (Zuwanderungsgesetz) was introduced

in Germany which focuses on an active integration policy which restricts new immigration and

allows only temporary immigration of qualified individuals, besides immigration on the basis of

family reunification.11

While both the Netherlands and Germany have experienced a certain amount of changes in regards

to immigration policies following 9/11, perhaps no other country has experienced more dramatic

changes in its stance since 9/11 than France explicitly point the finger of blame at Islam in its

discussion of immigration problems. Among the several differences between each country, one

factor that is consistent in most all Western European countries is that the events of 9/11 have had

a significant effect on domestic policies and legislation. “Anti-terrorism” is a watchword that has

been employed in a large portion of immigration legislation, especially in regards to legislation

produced immediately following the attacks of 9/11. This legislation, while applying generally to

any kind of terrorist or source of terrorism, has primarily targeted Muslim immigrants.12 France.

While for a time there appeared to be a more softened stance towards immigrants, since 9/11

France has trended back towards more restrictive immigration policies. In the past two years, for

example, France has President Sarkozy has been fairly transparent in asserting that Islam is at the

center of the immigration problem, stating that immigrants need to “learn to respect the country”

and “[accept] French laws, even if they don’t understand them,” because “it is up to them to adapt,

not for France.”13

11 Immigration and Islam in Europe, euro-islam.info. Accessed on October 21, 2014

http://www.euro-islam.info/key-issues/immigration

12 Institute of Race Relation, “Terror Policing Brings Many Arrests but Few Charges,” 2003, accessed on 29 October, 2014.

http://www.irr.org.uk/2003/march/ak000002.html.

13 Immigration and Islam in Europe, euro-islam.info. Accessed on October 21, 2014

http://www.euro-islam.info/key-issues/immigration

Page9

Proposed EU immigration policies and their outcome

Source: Adapted from Terri Givens and Adam Luedtke,14

14 Terri Givens and Adam Luedtke, The Politics of European Union Immigration Policy: Institutions, Salience, and

Harmonization, The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2004.Accessed on October 16, 2014. http://aei.pitt.edu/2862/1/111.pdf

Page1

0

6. The securitization of immigration: and its institutionalization in EU policies

Securitization is a theoretical tool through which various aspects of international security are

examined and analyzed. In international relations it emerged as a theoretical reflection of the

Copenhagen school and hence the analytical framework of securitization is based on the

constructivist worldview. At the mid-1980s onwards, migration has been approached by several

scholars and analysts as a substantial challenge to international security. The subsequent

discussions have dealt with both the nature and causes of migration but also it’s political,

economic, and social effects and implications on the host countries15 but it get a new dynamic in

the Post-9/11 era concerning immigration policy Christopher Rudolph’s 2006 book National

Security and Immigration emphasizes the role of security in the development of immigration

policy. To him policy is then modeled as primarily a function of threat perception and whether

threats are most acutely felt originating externally (geopolitics) or internally (domestic politics).”16

There are two types of immigration policies17

While USA mostly driven by the external impulses which led them towards boarder encroachment

policy on the other hand Europe mostly driven by the internal impulse and domestic politics. And

this situation exacerbated within the political, policy-making and legislative domain since terrorist

attacks. Even policies which are targeted at legal migration have strong implications for and are

related to a more restrictive integration policy which popularize the phenomenon of the fortress of

Europe in terms of immigration policies. 18

In an increased securitization of asylum and immigration in the following four main ways since

the recurrent terrorist attacks on the US and Europe’s soil:

15 Andreas Themistocleous, Securitizing Migration: Aspects and Critiques; The Globalized World Post May 16, 2013 accessed on

October 26, 2014

http://thegwpost.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/securitizing-migration-aspects-and-critiques-themistocleous-2013.pdf 16 Terri Givens and Adam Luedtke, The Politics of European Union Immigration Policy: Institutions, Salience, and

Harmonization, The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2004.Accessed on October 16, 2014.http://aei.pitt.edu/2862/1/111.pdf 17 Ibid 18 Ibid

Immigration Control

Illegal immigration

Political asylum/refugees

Family reunification

Legal labor immigration/visas

Immigration integration

Citizenship

Anti-discrimination

Language requirements8

Page1

1

Firstly, migration was conceptualized as a threat and a possible link between asylum seekers and

terrorism was contemplated denoting a qualitative change in the securitization of asylum and

immigration.

Secondly, it being officially established that asylum is an unlikely means of entry for terrorists and

that the safeguards would rather need to be escalated against illegal immigration, a huge leap was

made in the fight against the latter. The fight against illegal migration was transformed into the

central tenet of migration management of the EU and came to constitute a top priority on the

political agenda of the EU.

Thirdly extraterritorial asylum procedures and an increasing emphasis on keeping the asylum-

seeker out by enhancing protection in the regions of origin.

Fourthly, securitization of asylum and immigration was manifestly reinforced through the further

development of the external dimension of migration, where asylum and immigration were

converged with foreign policy priorities and high jacked by high politics.

The ‘Europeanization’ of immigration control as a result of the devastating attack on Madrid and

London bombing. National leaders in Europe made a swift response to each wave of Al Qaida

terrorist attacks. New or strengthened anti-terrorist laws brought in at this time have been

described as, ‘panicked, ineffective, exaggerated, authoritarian and in breach of civil rights

conventions’. Some of these anti-terrorism laws made explicit links with immigrants: all have

profound implications for immigrants. After the attacks on Madrid and London, powers to detain

and deport illegal immigrants were expanded. Since 2002, Europol has officially prioritized illegal

immigration networks and human trafficking. Across the European Union, new databases have

been set up that enable member states to track, hold and share information on asylum-seekers and

other foreign incomers. The EU’s external land border is now patrolled by armed guards with dogs,

heat-detecting technology and unmanned aerial vehicles to defend against illegal entry. Patrols are

being built up along the most vulnerable points of its maritime border. But how appropriate are

these measures to meet a notional security threat from immigrants? What we know about the

perpetrators of 9/11-inspired strikes suggests that these are most likely to be ‘home-grown’: to be

disenchanted and radicalized second- or third-generation immigrants who have grown up in

European host states. Such people are not going to be intercepted through stricter controls on entry

to EU territory or additional surveillance at the EU’s external border. Some of the measures

introduced are certainly appropriate for the prevention of terrorism or other forms of crime relating

to immigrants. Overall, though, they have had a much greater impact on the lives of innocent

foreign incomers and foreign residents than they have on foreigner’s intent on committing criminal

acts This ties in well with the ‘post-liberal’ characteristics associated with the ‘surveillance

state’. Developed countries in Europe and elsewhere are using new technologies to collect and

store data on peoples’ movements and activities. With this they are intruding more and more in

what used to be understood as the private domain of the individual. 19

The four main developments demonstrating quantitative and qualitative reinforcement of the

securitization of asylum and immigration are the following. Firstly, the establishment of the VIS,

which was a direct consequence of the events of 9/11, was conceived with a securitarian mindset.

19 Dr Patricia Hogwood, The Impact of 9/11 on European Immigration Policy, Westminster’s International Relations, October

2011 http://westminsters-international-relations.blogspot.com/2011/10/impact-of-911-on-european-immigration.html

Page1

2

Secondly, the use of biometric data has become considerably more political. Thirdly, the fight

against terrorism has been officially stated as one of the objectives for both the VIS and the SIS.

A qualitative increase in securitization is therefore observed. Fourthly, considerable progress has

been made in the development of various surveillance measures through FRONTEX since its

creation in 2005.’20 Thus, since 9/11, progressive tightening of the borders, heavily restricted legal

entry options and the fight against illegal immigration have resulted in the creation of a ‘de facto

illegal asylum seeker’ and his/her consequent criminalization.21

The number of the irregular foreign resident population in 2002, 2005 and 2008.

Year

Absolute population

numbers in millions

As percentage of

population

As percentage of

foreign population

minimum maximum minimum maximum minimum maximum

EU 15

2002 3.1 5.3 0.8% 1.4% 14% 25%

2005 2.2 4.8 0.58% 1.23% 8% 18%

2008 1.8 3.3 0.46% 0.83% 7% 12%

EU 27

2008 1.9 3.8 0.39% 0.77% 7% 13%

Source: adapted from Franck Düvell and Bastian Vollmer22

7. Theoretical implication of the study:

7.1 The Copenhagen School and securitization concept

The securitization paradigm, first developed by the Copenhagen School going beyond the

traditional narrowly defined and state-centric understandings of security as relating to a military

threat to the state, the Copenhagen School extended the definition of security ‘horizontally’ to

include political, economic, environmental, military and societal security and ‘vertically’ to

include referent objects such as the individual and the groups.23 Hence the emphasis has shifted

from survival of the state as a collective entity in the international system of states, to also

guaranteeing the security of the individual belonging to the state, regardless of their location in the

20 Sarah Leonard, “The ‘Securitization’ of Asylum and Migration in the European Union: Beyond the Copenhagen School’s

Framework,” September, 2007), http://turin.sgir.eu/uploads/Leonard-sgir_conference_paper_final_sleonard.pdf

21 Dace Schlentz, Did 9/11 matter? Securitization of asylum and immigration in the European Union in the period from1992 to

2008, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, January 2010. Accessed on September 15, 2014.

http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/publications/working-paper-series/wp56-did-911-matter-2010.pdf

22 Franck Düvell, Bastian Vollmer, European Security Challenges. EU-US Immigration Systems, European University

Institute/Robert-Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Florence (2011)

http://www.eui.eu/Projects/TransatlanticProject/Documents/BackgroundPapers/EU-USImmigrationSystems-Security-bp.pdf 23 Dace Schlentz, Did 9/11 matter? Securitization of asylum and immigration in the European Union in the period from1992 to

2008, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, January 2010. Accessed on September 15, 2014.

http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/publications/working-paper-series/wp56-did-911-matter-2010.pdf

Page1

3

world.24. Thus, security is the move that takes politics beyond the established rules of the game

and frames the issue either as a special kind of politics or as above politics. The basic premise, and

most important characteristic, of the Copenhagen School’s approach therefore is that nothing

constitutes a security issue a priori; instead, labelling something security matter is a choice and it

always requires the issue to be ‘written and talked into existence’. The Copenhagen School thus

marked the onset of the ‘linguistic turn’, whereby language was seen as constitutive of social

relations and of the meanings given.

Paris School approach to securitization, which may be better suited to analyzing asylum and

immigration matters conceives that securitization of immigration emerges not solely from

successful speech acts of politicians, but also from a range of administrative practices such as

population profiling, risk assessment, statistical calculation, category creation, proactive

preparation and the mobilization and habitus of security professionals, which exert crucial

influence over the formation of insecurity domains.

Besides, the Paris approach illuminates how internal and external security converge to form two

sides of the same coin as security agencies compete for the gradually de-territorialized tasks of

traditional police, military and customs, and demonstrates how these agents jointly produce a new

threat image by linking immigration, organized crime and terror. Drawing upon the Copenhagen

School’s emphasis on political speech acts and the Paris School’s emphasis on administrative

practice and technological responses, analysis of Securitization of asylum and immigration in the

EU.25

7.2 State-Centric Approaches and Intergovernmentalism

EU immigration policymaking is bottom-up, in that it sees immigration policy institutions as

arising from domestic politics and national immigration policies. Thus, we draw on theories of

“intergovernmentalism,” which see supranational institutions as a means of locking in preferred

domestic political arrangements low-conflict mode of “client politics” that determines immigration

policies in the absence of populist pressure against immigration. When client politics alone

determined the shape of immigration politics, then a liberal, harmonized policy was the outcome,

however, in most areas of immigration policy, such as TCNs, asylum, and citizenship,

harmonization has been blocked, and where it has occurred it has been security-focused and

heavily restrictive. European state actors have been successful in getting around supranational

constraints on their ability to restrict immigration. That national governments have dodged

constraints through one particular strategy called “venue shopping” in which state actors

strategically use EU-level organizations to pursue national policy goals, trading sovereignty for

policy success.26

24 Veera Eleonoora Enlund, The securitization of European Union immigration Policy: a warranted response to international

Terrorism? Lebanese American University, 2011. Accessed on 16 October,2014

http://laur.lau.edu.lb:7080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10725/1075/Veera_Eleonoora_Enlund_Thesis.pdf?sequence=1 25 Dace Schlentz, Did 9/11 matter? Securitization of asylum and immigration in the European Union in the period from1992 to

2008, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, January 2010. Accessed on September 15, 2014.

http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/publications/working-paper-series/wp56-did-911-matter-2010.pdf 26 Ibid

Page1

4

7.3 Neo- Functionalist theory and European integration on immigration policy

The factors presented are intrinsically linked and in some measure interdependent and thus cannot

necessarily be treated in isolation. The first three factors (functional pressures, the role of

supranational institutions, and socialization, deliberation, and learning) are hypothesized as

dynamics. Functional pressures emerge where, due to the interdependence of policy sectors and

issue areas, the pursuit of the original goal requires additional integrative action. As such,

functional pressures stem from the tensions, contradictions, and interdependencies arising in policy

sectors encompassed by the European integration project, and its policies, politics, and polity. The

socialization, deliberation, and learning processes work as an interface between structure and

agency. Functional, exogenous and domestic structures become part of decision-makers’ norms

and values throughout processes of socialization and learning.27

8. Case study: The Netherlands and United Kingdom

There is no doubt that the securitization of migration is a phenomenon that occurs in a large number

of states from last part of the 20th century but Since the aerial attacks the world envisaged a new

era. Major Powers coordinate their security policy against the possible terrorist attack assuming as

the prime security concern. And these development not only induce traditional security issue but

the governments and the world leaders adopted several crystalized policy. Immigration is in the

front of these policies where most of the countries aligned their immigration policies in line with

security concern. Immigration policy is no longer framed simply according to traditional issues

linked with immigrants and their needs. New policy initiatives and proposed laws have prioritized

security concerns over civil liberties. It’s no exaggeration to say that, in these years since

9/11, immigration policy has become a tool of internal security policy. National leaders in Europe

made a swift response to each wave of Al Qaida terrorist attacks.

New or strengthened anti-terrorist laws brought in at this time have been described as, ‘panicked,

ineffective, exaggerated, authoritarian and in breach of civil rights conventions. Some of these

anti-terrorism laws made explicit links with immigrants. All have profound implications for

immigrants. After the attacks on Madrid and London, powers to detain and deport illegal

immigrants were expanded. In Germany and the UK, high-profile radical Islamists were arrested

and deported.28 Several European countries adopted several restrictive policies regarding treatment

of new immigrant and the existing communities was under immense pressure. United Kingdom,

27 Arne Niemann, The Dynamics of EU Migration Policy: From Maastricht to Lisbon, Oxford University Press, 2012. Accessed

on October 17, 2014.

http://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb02-internationale-beziehungen/files/2013/02/Niemann-2012-EU-migration-policy.pdf

28 Dr Patricia Hogwood, The Impact of 9/11 on European Immigration Policy, Westminster’s International Relations, October

2011 http://westminsters-international-relations.blogspot.com/2011/10/impact-of-911-on-european-immigration.html

Page1

5

Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, Italy are in the front line of this scenario. Most of the

countries are now on the road of changing their immigration policies to confront the context while

in most cases Muslims become the prime target and identified as the trouble maker which work

the catalyst to drive the motivation of these restrictive policies. Here this paper will sketch the

basic changes and the causes these development in the immigration policy of the member states of

the European Union where the immigration policy has seen dramatic trajectory in United Kingdom

and The Netherlands. How these changes actually changed the life of the immigrant and influence

new development in these two countries.

8.1 United Kingdom’s immigration policy since 9/11

Most of the European countries already shrunk their welcome mats for Muslims and other

immigrants, and the U.K. may soon follow suit – in sea-change elections earlier this month, the

electorate gave the anti-immigrant UK Independent Party stunning gains that many expect will

lead other UK parties to toughen their immigration policies.29

In the wake of 9/11, concerns about international terrorism permeated public political discourse in

the UK, with the focus largely resting upon measures that could be taken to prevent such events

occurring in Britain. The identity of the perpetrators of 9/11 as Muslims has arguably significantly

negatively impacted British Muslims, who seem to have been identified as a key problem in the

fight against terror, and arguably constructed as a threat. Mere months after 9/11 for example,

former British Home Secretary David Blunkett ‘accused impoverished, marginalized,

disempowered and radicalized British South Asian Muslims...of indulging in “self -styled”

segregation, of not speaking English within the home...it is a poignant example of how

Muslims...are considered perpetrators of their own misfortunes’ Indeed, 9/11 has had a significant

influence on the implementation of counter-terrorism legislation; the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime

and Security Act is perhaps the best example of the extent to which fears of terrorism impacted

legislation made by political elites focused to terrorist financing, detention of the suspicious

terrorist. There were several rather knee-jerk attempts to address the security threat through

migration control policies. The UK Home Secretary David Blunkett insisted that Britain would

not “offer hospitality to terrorists”, and announced provisions to facilitate the detention and

removal of foreign nationals30 particular interest as it targets Immigration and Asylum, and

specifically details the Home Secretary’s new ability to indefinitely detain any non- British citizen,

if deportation isn’t feasible, whom he suspects to be a terrorist or a risk to national security (Anti-

29 LAWRENCE SOLOMON, migration backlash, financial post, May 15, 2013

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/05/15/lawrence-solomon-immigration-backlash/

30 Christina Boswell, Migration Control in Europe after 9/11: Explaining the Absence of Securitization, Migration Research

Group, HWWA, 2006. Accessed on September 15, 2014. https://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/european_studies/

files/PDF/immigration-policy-conference/boswell.pdf

Page1

6

Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) the Home Office’s (2007, 10) “Enforcing the Rules”

illustrate ‘the kind of harms that we are striving to minimize and offer a sense of their relative

impact...the majority of cases are likely to involve illegal migrants, but not always.

The government actually responding to the rising concern over the immigration Negative public

and political perceptions of migration and situation is getting messier as the economic crisis is on

the rise and the UK Muslim young’s participation in the current Middle East crisis. The argument

in favor of reduced immigration has now been won. The public have, for many years now,

expressed their concern about levels of immigration and the impact that this had on housing, public

services, and the labor market. 94% of Britons think that Britain is ‘full up’ and 79% of people in

England think that England is ‘overcrowded’. While the public are sufficiently nuanced to

welcome highly skilled workers and students to our best universities, they are aware of the impacts

of high levels of immigration on public services with 76% believing that immigration has placed

too much pressure on health, transport and education and 69% believing that immigration has had

a negative impact on the availability of housing. As for current government policy, 78% of the

public support the aim to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.32

The recent rise of United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) which mostly raise voice against

Anti Europe and Anti-Muslim, They get a strong feet on the issue of migration as the earlier parties

were more indifference in this issue it gave the rise to this hard core nationalist party to gain

popularity in recent days. the most important thing is that this tide actually induce the other major

parties to go in line with this to adopt restrictive policies off longstanding immigration friendly

UK. Every major parties are now busy to prepare their policy on how to control the immigration

flow which is hampering so called UK economy and threat to British identity. As Ed Miliband

said: “It’s not prejudiced when people worry about immigration. It’s understandable. And we were

wrong in the past when we dismissed people’s concerns.”33 Europe is facing a period of record

31 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/347878/immigration-q2-

2014snr.pdf

32 What is the problem? Migration Watch http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem 33 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/uk-independence-party-finds-its-voice-amid-growing-anti-immigrant-

wave/2013/03/31/c4c022a6-97bd-11e2-b5b4-b63027b499de_story.html

Examples of threats In

crea

se S

erio

usn

ess

Of

Har

m

Threats to national security, such as involvement in terrorism

Committing serious or violent crimes

Organized crime such as human trafficking into forced labor and involvement

in drug trafficking

Knowingly employing illegal workers where it combines abuse of individuals,

tax evasion, undermining the minimum wage and fair competition

Fraudulent access to benefits

Reduced community cohesion

Health tourism

Undermining public confidence in the immigration system

Creating a systemic pull’ for more illegal migrants to follow

Home Office’s (2007, 10) “Enforcing the Rules” 31

Page1

7

unemployment that has allowed unpredictable political forces to take root. This scenario

instigating the British people to support such hardliner parties like UKIP.

In recent time net migration to the UK has fallen by a third, demonstrating the restrictive policies

making England less desirable destination for the migrant both skilled, semi -skilled labor student

and many other people. Already the immigrant communities are under pressure as tougher

restrictions imposed by Cameron’s government have not only led to a decline in immigrant

inflows — particularly of non-E.U. foreign students —since 2010 but also the existing

communities are feeling distressed as they are socially portrayed as the internal enemy of the socio

economy and security of UK. Which is acting as a great block towards more disintegration of the

existing societies of non EU origin citizen of England. While in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack

several restrictive measure for entrance in UK was imposed like language capability and oath of

allegiance citizenship training and several other measure were adopted and these were mostly

targeted Muslim community there as Muslim were identifies as the root cause of all the problem

regarding immigration, social ghettoeism and religious differences that make the mainstream

community uncomfortable to get used to this multiculturalism and London bombing actually make

this scenario more complex for the Muslim community there as there was a arguing need by the

citizen right activists to control the over Muslim organizations, the reprisal of the state funding to

the community groups and more rigid language and citizenship requirements.

While these policies were taken to prevent the possible terrorist attack or the offset the

radicalization process this policies actually further deteriorated the situation creating a climate of

suspicion around the Muslim community. While the statesmen now stress that it’s not the duty of

the state to integrate the immigrants rather it is the duty of the later to learn to integrate or they

will be deported from the country. Several institution has been established to oversee these

development and the religious clothing were under immense criticism calling it radical and as a

direct non-obedience to the western value. 34 UK is not only closing its boarder for the non-

European citizen it is also pressing the EU to adopt policies to restrict the entrance of immigrants

from poor countries and the east European countries that join the European Union. New

“transitional measures” taken by the EU commission this year would allow Britain and other

countries to impose immigration restrictions on new EU countries for beyond the seven year period

used for Romania and Bulgaria in 2007.35

34 Ariane Chebel d'Appollonia, Simon Reich, Managing Ethnic Diversity after 9/11: Integration, Security, and Civil Liberties in

Transatlantic Perspective, Chapter three, Christopher Rudolph, security and the integration of immigrants in Europe and the

United States, Rutgers University Press, London 2010.

35 David Cameron secures tougher immigration restrictions on new EU numbers, The Telegraph Friday 31 October 2014

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11150390/David-Cameron-secures-tougher-immigration-restrictions-on-new-EU-

numbers.html

Page1

8

8.2 Netherland’s immigration policy since 9/11

As an example of the changes which have come about due to dramatic increases in sheer numbers

of immigrants, Netherlands, often characterized as having more liberal immigration policies, have

begun in the last two to three years to tighten their requirements and reform their vision of

immigration. The issue of illegal immigration—already a significant problem in several European

countries—has been dramatically compounded by increasing amounts of immigrants, growing

skepticism concerning multiculturalist ideologies, and perceived potential threats of terrorism or

radical extremism.

During the 1960s and 1970s the immigration policies in the Netherlands were minimally regulated

and for the most part accommodated Muslim immigrants who were guest workers in the country.

In the late 70s and into the 80s, as more immigrants began to permanently settle in the country,

there was subsequently a great increase in family reunification and marriage migration. Owing to

this influx in marriage migration and family reunification along with the growing skepticism

concerning the concept of a multicultural society, since the 1990s there has been a trend of

increasingly less favorable treatment towards Muslim immigrants and greater difficulty in regular

migration.. While these policies were in the hand the debate over immigration get afresh turn with

the murder of the film director Theo van Gogh and the anti-immigrant leader Fortuyn instigated a

great debate on immigration and the Islamic community. Following Fortuyn's death, open rejection

of multiculturalism and immigration ceased to be taboo. The new cabinet, under premier Jan-Peter

Balkenende instituted a hard-liner assimilation policy, enforced by fines and deportation,

accompanied by far tighter controls on immigration and asylum.

Many former supporters of multiculturalism shifted their position. In a 2006 manifesto "one

country, one society", several of them launched an appeal for a more cohesive society by "unity in

diversity", while deploring what they saw as increasing intolerance. Intellectual criticism for

multiculturalism and Islam were increasingly gained popular support in the mainstream society

e.g Paul Scheffer — a member of the Labor Party and subsequently a professor of urban studies —

published his essay "The multicultural tragedy" an essay critical of both immigration and

multiculturalism where he mostly stressed on the fault of multiculturalism and argued for Dutch

identity. Own language, culture, and history seriously, and immigrants must learn this language,

culture, and history should be promoted. Ayaan Hirsi Ali the prominent feminist harshly attack on

Islam as the troubling ideology in destroying Europe. These criticism of multiculturalism and

murder instigate the the Dutch authority to introduce harsh integration conditionality for the

immigrant. Since 1st January 2007 the WIN has been replaced by the Wet Inburgering (Integration

Law). Unlike the WIN, this act, which imposes the duty to integrate, is not only aimed at new

arrivals but also at old comers, who have already lived in the country for a couple of years, but

who have not completely integrated or participated in Dutch society, due to their insufficient

knowledge of the Dutch language and society. All people who fall under this new act are required

to pass an integration examination, which tests the participants' knowledge of the Dutch language

and society. The Netherlands is currently the only country in the world to demand knowledge of

language and society from its inhabitants (with a non-Western immigrant background) before

Page1

9

allowing them to stay permanently.36 As an example of these changes, since 2004 the age at which

a person can bring over a partner has been raised from 18 to 21, and the partner residing in the

Netherlands must earn 120% of the legal minimum wage The Dutch government stress out that it

will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants

to create a parallel society within the Netherlands and most of the Dutch actually supporting this

skepticism over multiculturalism by the government.

9. Future of EU immigration policy

Connecting with the public and EU response:

National policymakers struggle with increasing public skepticism towards their policy choices in

the area of immigration. A significant proportion of voters across Europe believes their

governments have lost control of the immigration portfolio, and are no longer able to manage

immigration flows effectively. This perception, in turn, has damaged the ability of numerous

governments to attempt real reform of immigration systems, rather than merely tightening rules of

access. EU cooperation has actually contributed most concretely to a more rigorous system of

border surveillance.37 As the EU is concern more to integrate the citizen and the interest of these

social groups in its apparatus policy in the EU will be tougher day by day in the future as there is

little sign that public fear evaporate in the future as the economic recession and the rise of new

economic power in the Asian and Latin American countries are slowing down the economic

recovery in the west.

Multiculturalism, Assimilation or integration

This is another concerning area that the countries of European Union will face in the future more

acutely. As fur EU has not been successful on what is the best policy to integrate the immigrants

as a common rule so why every state are now following their nationalist imperatives to shape their

policy. As in the most cases the EU Countries are less interested to align, most of their policies in

line with the European Union’s policy so it will be a perplexing situation for policies towards

immigration and integration policy

Economic need vs. nationalist interest

While every year the number of ageing people in Europe is increasing that indicates that in the

near future Europe going to face a real problem in labor power supply. In this scenario the growing

need of manpower ultimately loose the underpinning of these restrict policies. Another thing of

concern that even today many agro based farm and Universities are crying for flexible immigration

policies as they are felt the problem of less immigrant much than any other sector. These

perplexing question also lead to new debate in the future regarding immigration policy.

36Dutch government and the immigration http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dutchstudies/an/SPLINKS_UCL_POPUP/SPs

english/multicultureel_gev_ENG/pages/autochtonen. html

37 Elizabeth Collett, Facing 2020: developing a new European agenda for immigration and asylum policy, Migration policy

institute , February 2013.

Page2

0

Muslim and the radicalization

Muslim are now the worst sufferer of the tight immigration policy of EU countries. While on the

one hand EU is making its fortress on the other hand these restrictive policies actually working as

bouncing back for the harmony of the EU as the Muslim feel less favorable to the context of Europe

and ultimately they become the possible recruit of the terrorist organization and the returning

militant from the middle east crisis also pose serious question to the policy maker on how integrate

these concern to hammer out the ultimate solution both at the EU policies and the domestic level.

In the future other area of concern would be how to balance between the need of the nationalist

parties at Europe and the reality to invite more immigrant and best integration policy for a

harmonious future of Europe. How to face the challenge posed by the Muslim community there

and how to encounter the civil right concern of the world humanitarian laws though EU remain

the best practitioner of these laws more transparently than many other regional or individual states.

10. Conclusions

There is no doubt that the securitization of migration is a phenomenon that occurs in a large number

of states. This paper mainly argues that the securitization of European Union’s and member states

policies concerning immigration and integration of the non-European immigrant has got new speed

after the 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks which have a profound impact on the European

political elites and on the domestic public opinion to turn towards more restrictive stance against

the immigrant identifying them as the menace to Western civilization and culture. Underpinning

these ideas from the theoretical perspective it shows how the issue of immigration become linked

with the national security on the rise of terrorist attacks, economic challenge, unemployment,

social unrest and cultural differences. These development make this scenario more complex and

gave rise to the right wing parties throughout Europe whose propaganda against immigrant and

the flexible European immigration laws gained popularity among the citizen, drive the countries

as well as EU to adopt restrictive measure to secure its boarder and citizen. While the 9/11 gave

the early impetus, the rise of radical Islam its robust media attention preach fear among the

European citizen, the legacy of the home grown terrorist mostly Muslim work as catalyst to give

rise to the anti-immigrant party through ought Europe for which Europe is taking restrictive

policies and building institutional competences to counter these development in the name of

security and anti-terrorism measure. In the case of United Kingdom and the Netherland these

factors actually have deeper impact on the policy makers to undertake more restrictive measure to

make their boundary exclusive and restrict for the immigrant by changing the legislature and

adopting several policies imposing entrance conditions and tight surveillance of the boarder and

changing laws to asylum and integration which is most true for most of the European countries.

References

Arne Niemann, The Dynamics of EU Migration Policy: From Maastricht to Lisbon, Oxford

University Press, 2012. Accessed on October 17, 2014.

http://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb02-internationale-beziehungen/files/2013/02/Niemann-2012-

EU-migration-policy.pdf

Andreas Themistocleous, Securitizing Migration: Aspects and Critiques; The Globalized World

Post May 16, 2013 accessed on October 26, 2014

http://thegwpost.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/securitizing-migration-aspects-and-critiques-

themistocleous-2013.pdf

Ariane Chebel d'Appollonia, and Simon Reich (edit), Managing Ethnic Diversity after 9/11:

Integration, Security, and Civil Liberties in Transatlantic Perspective, (Chapter three, Christopher

Rudolph, security and the integration of immigrants in Europe and the United States), Rutgers

University Press, London 2010.

Christina Boswell, Migration Control in Europe after 9/11: Explaining the Absence of

Securitization, Migration Research Group, HWWA, 2006. Accessed on September 15, 2014.

https://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/european_studies/_files/PDF/immigration-policy-

conference/boswell.pdf

Dace Schlentz, Did 9/11 matter? Securitization of asylum and immigration in the European Union

in the period from1992 to 2008, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, January 2010.

Accessed on September 15, 2014.

http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/publications/working-paper-series/wp56-did-911-matter-2010.pdf

Franck Düvell, Bastian Vollmer, European Security Challenges. EU-US Immigration Systems,

European University Institute/Robert-Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Florence (2011)

http://www.eui.eu/Projects/TransatlanticProject/Documents/BackgroundPapers/EU-

USImmigrationSystems-Security-bp.pdf

Terri Givens and Adam Luedtke, The Politics of European Union Immigration Policy: Institutions,

Salience, and Harmonization, The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2004.Accessed on

October 16, 2014. http://aei.pitt.edu/2862/1/111.pdf

Sedef Eylemer - Sühal Şemşit, Migration-security nexus in the Euro-Mediterranean relations,

Perceptions, Summer-Autumn 2007 accessed on October 26, 2014 http://sam.gov.tr/wp-

content/uploads/2012/02/EylemerSemsit.pdf

Sarah Leonard, “The ‘Securitization’ of Asylum and Migration in the European Union: Beyond

the Copenhagen School’s Framework,” September, 2007), accessed on October 10, 2014

http://turin.sgir.eu/uploads/Leonard-sgir_conference_paper_final_sleonard.pdf

Institute of Race Relation, “Terror Policing Brings Many Arrests but Few Charges,” 2003,

accessed on 29 October, 2014 http://www.irr.org.uk/2003/march/ak000002.html.

Immigration and Islam in Europe, euro-islam.info. Accessed on October10, 2014

http://www.euro-islam.info/key-issues/immigration

Terri E. Givens, Immigration and National Security: Comparing the US and Europe, the

Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations.2012 accessed on October 26, 2014

http://www.euc.illinois.edu/eucdw2011/documents/GivensUSEUJournalofDiplomacy2010.pdf

Veera Eleonoora Enlund, The securitization of European Union immigration Policy: a warranted

response to international Terrorism? Lebanese American University, 2011. Accessed on 16

October, 2014.

http://laur.lau.edu.lb:7080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10725/1075/Veera_Eleonoora_Enlund_Thesis

.pdf?sequence=1