Securitization Theory Reviewed: Under Which Conditions Are Migration Control Policies Justified?

Current European politics are marked by an ideological rift over migrant control policies. This split has been increasing after more than one million refugees arrived in Europe in 2015, in conditions amounting to a humanitarian emergency. Political debates and media reporting on refugees, instead of being fact-based, tend to be emotional and moralistic, tapping into either feelings of fear or ethical conscience of European populations. Securitization theory – which argues that political elites deliberately frame migration as a security problem to legitimize exceptional measures for migration control – has gained much ground over the past decades in the field of security studies. By explaining the anti-refugee discourse as a premeditated strategy primarily motivated by voter mobilization, securitization theory designates securitization as a social construct.

This paper argues that securitization scholars omit asking whether strengthened control of migration could be an objectively beneficial and empirically-driven logic, or even imperative policy for governments to follow. Going beyond the ideological pro/anti-refugee cleavage, the author examines the available evidence in support of, or against strengthened control policies. A comparative analysis of recruitment methods by armed groups in various contexts indicates that refugees and their migratory routes into Europe could certainly be exploited by terrorists. However, data on terrorist attacks committed on European soil suggest that “refugee infiltration” by terrorists into Europe is an exceptional and not standardized or common modus operandi. Policy implications of these findings include a “securitizing model” that involves refugees, who are not unaware of the security dilemma European states face.